Along with TPL own the technology that ARMHY sold illeagally to hundreds of customers.

Unless those customer were covered with an indemenity agreement they too are going to get sued, so, ARHMY is in trouble they have to defend how they got the Moore Microprocessor Technology and prove that they patented it first, which they have a very poor case.

Patent Thieves, are thieves, exploiting smaller companies and hindering their success, thanks to ARHMY and Other infringers PTSC has had a hard time marketing their products, NO PTSC and TPL are not a competitors they are ORIGINAL OWNERs of technolgy that ARMHY peddled as common knowledge.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 7-Sep-06 04:31 pm Patent Office, PTSC Patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse...

tml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 7-Sep-06 05:33 pm <>

Ooooh, I like this.

Ever heard of BB trolls being hunted down by the feds for spreading malicious lies, chuckles?

I think you might be learning more very soon.

Dr Z.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 7-Sep-06 05:35 pm <>

It is very clear to all here that you have ZERO idea what you are talking about. All ARM have to show is that the single patent is invalid due to prior art.

Dr Z.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 7-Sep-06 06:10 pm What prior art patent(s) are you referring to?

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (1 Rating) 8-Sep-06 05:53 am << What prior art patent(s) are you referring to?>>

Thank you for illustrating my point. You guys have got this all wrong, and have whipped yourselves up into a frenzy based on false information.

To invalidate a patent, there is absolutely no need to show precedent in a patent. It is sufficient merely to show that someone - not even the defendant - was using technology similar to that described in the patent at the time of the application.

That is the last time I will explain this for you.

I ask that other board readers treat these trolls with the contempt they deserve. They are terrified that PTSC is going to be delisted very soon, which partially explains their interest if not their lies.

Dr Z.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 12:03 pm Trolls is the remark invented by Patent Thieves

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 12:19 pm Prior Art has a time limit to be contested (I believe 6 Months). Its too late to argue that point.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 02:23 pm Bullshit.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 04:17 pm That is suppose is the extent of your thinking process.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 02:26 pm Ok- So don`t answer the question. Your evasiveness is obvious and in and of itself answers my question. You cannot cite any prior art.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 12:05 pm Guvna! AMD, Intel, HP, CASIO, SONNNYYY!! and other could not prove prior art, what make these die hard lamos think that they can prove prior art?

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 12:02 pm Since you know so much, point out the ``prior art``, there isnt any, those where the days when the 286 computer running dos were working, PTSC is the Patent Owner. Dip!

Otherwise they would not have been issued the patent.

Good luck to you and your senseless remarks.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 02:22 pm <>

Again, you reveal how little you know of the process.

If all your PTSC cheerleading chums are as clueless as you (and there is every indication they are), then you are all going to be hit very hard when reality hits. De-listing may not be far off.

Dr Z.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 04:16 pm Your right Im not a patent expert, but all you do is argue with useless accusations, and uncofirmed claims with no substance to back up your wild claims, to this date you have not posted any references or links to support your lame case.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 06:05 pm <>

I assume you are directing this at TPL.

I agree. They and PTSC are going to come off badly from this.

Meanwhile, PTSC could be mere days from de-listing.

Dr Z.

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 06:17 pm You are high!! LOL Do your DD here and you won`t have to take such a ridiculous position. Your bias knows no bounds!

Re: New Competitor/ REAL PATENTS OWNR (Not rated) 8-Sep-06 08:00 pm Again your Blah, Blah Blahing! No substance just sensless arguments. And NO, PTSC will not be de listing they already won the first round in court against the Japanes and ARM, do your DD!