Kool...
I would suspect that the vast majority of shareholders are aware of management's shortcomings over the past decade.
In hindsight, initiating intellectual property litigation on patent '774 in 1996 rather than in 2006 would have likely been the most expeditious and profitable alternative.
It is known by only a handful on this board that prior to 1996, had the company proactively discovered an easily repairable technical glitch with their (1993/1994) 10,000+ unit rollout of their first "portable handheld digital device using removeable flash memory"('774), it "may" have been a paradigm shift for both the industry and e.Digital shareholders.
For whatever reason, and in spite of sufficient funding to later litigate the construction claims of '774, management elected to sit it out while other companies profited from e.Digital's patent. It was only when it was too late, under the stewardship of Jim Collier, that the company pursued a fool's mission of again attempting to manufacture and market their own portable handheld digital device.
Later, and again instead of initiating patent litigation on '774, management chose to devise a new business model executed on the notion that another patent (MicroOS) would be the most expeditious conduit with which to profit from their intellectual property. The pollyanna notion of "our enemies becoming our partners" was to become more meaningful as future devices became more robust.
AI
