Replies to post #83501 on e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[DISCHINO]

I agree with your assesments and past comments have become reality.

Lets face it, Handal/EDIG did not have to accept the settlement offer.

Whatever it was, we won't know any details.

[heybrad]

Those comments are just factually wrong.

1) Apple gets sued all the time by large and small companies so the first claim is just factually false. But don't believe me just google the most sued tech company.. or read this.."The report also noted that Apple has been the most-sued technology company since 2008, a year after the iPhone hit the market, according to LegalMetric Inc." So their fighting till the end comment and not settling has staved off every 50 buck company from suing them is just factually wrong.

2) The only proof out there is how totally false the comment the markman hasn't had an effect on edig. How anyone following edig can believe that is AMAZING. The facts are that when this judge in Cal apporoved the CE incorporating what is being called a joke, Edig had to drop the 774 patent all claims and 2 the 108 claims. That is a huge effect. SO much so edig agreed to a settlement with one company so they could appeal the CE ruling., If it were true what has been stated in the post I am responding to then they would waste the time. effort and especially money to appeal the CE. But everyone on this board who has followed edig knows the Colorado markman and californina CE implementing the Colorado markman here has ahd a huge effect. Management has even said it's had an effect. They dropped at least 6 cases in Colorado after the markman and now have had to drop the 774 patent against all the cal suits and 2 claims of the 108 patent.
it is just totally false to claim the markman ruling in Colorado has had little effect on edig.

3) the claims exhibit once again how totally false most of the claims made about the markman ruloing have been . In fact the Markman ruling attacked as a joke etc. was totally confirmed by the current judge and he even wrote supporting it in his decision ruling on the CE. He said it was well thought and presented the markman Colorado ruling. I certainly believe the California judge over the comment I am responding to.

And the first comment is nonsensical to boot. With the retainers they pay why settle. That is the very reason to settle. Because of the cost of litigation and apple pays dearly. So really the opposite of the comment as usual is the truth.

anyone knowing the history and happenings should be able to see that the almost the entire post I am resonding is simply false and doesn't stand up to the facts.