Jefother,

Thank you for your post.

You wrote:

"You' re missing a very important point - the Judge admonished Digecor for not believing the non-compete was important enough to include in the Oct 22 Agreement. He also indicated the original non-compete was very loosly drafted and much too broad. THAT FAVORED EDIG.

It's clear to me at least that BW was a sore loser on the IP ownership issue and set out to justify his decision(s), which were all self-serving, by attempting to screw edig.

Could this have been avoided - maybe - but I personally doubt it.

and "that's all I have to say about that"

Jefother,

I beg to differ with you...I am NOT missing the point. You have construed yours regarding the NDA and ALSO the fact that the issue right now is your referencing some posters as "bashers" for their very correct position (and probably edigs own position on it today) regarding the NDA! That is the issue.

According to what I read...the judge suggested that the non compete should have been included in the Oct 22 agreement if it was that critical to digecor. The fact that the NDA was loosely drafted ONLY POSSIBLY favored edig in litigation...it quite certainly could have gone the other way (regarding the NDA) had NOT edig had the intent that they stated (not giving away the tech, etc) and acted accordingly. It is also very probable had the NDA been drafted and reviewed by an attorney to protect e.Digital from law suits...edig would NOT have been sued avoiding all this mess to begin with.

"and "that's all I have to say about that""

Wow...you prodded me for wanting to not get "into it"...but that is fine with me.

We would NOT be in this discussion at all if you had not "blindly" accused "The Others" (Lost TV show pun intended :-) of bashing regarding the facts of the NDA. It was wrong..I pointed it out with facts.

We received great news today.

Let's move on shall we?

Again great job on the Pacer documents. It is appreciated along with Silvers efforts as well.

Kind regards,

Pam