" I don't know for sure but I sure would like to get more details."
letgo... for 108 and the claims at hand....it's about the combined methods of writing and reading data (without the need of directive structures patented) to and from the flash through cache b, with that, the faster the flash programming latency...the better.
IMO, (actually I'm past IMO on this matter)
e.Digital has simply combined methods to move data to and from the flash with less overhead, and the methods can be utilized for other memory issues if they have the programming speed of flash. The methods are best beneficial for battery operated devices....and the effect on battery power is, no matter how pronounced the battery ... relative.
As for "How many infringe?" I would say the whole industry infringes the methods.....for battery powered devices and non battery powered devices.
It's why I've hung out here for so long.....DOS(or UNIX) to MOS was a very good analogy a dozen years ago. e.Digital, as I see things, moved the industry away from battery back RAM products when it ramped up.
I really thank all you guys for staying so steadfast on matters.
later
doni
