That's similar to what I suggested the other day re: prior art. I was correctly shot down as I implied that such prior art was not something already patented. But if patents existed that consititute prior art, what we have both suggested stands to reason, i.e., IF there is patented prior art, why isn't that patent holder suing the crap out of everybody? Further, why is this not-for-profit supposed consumer protection outfit making the fuss, and not the patent holder? Seems the patent holder, if there's anything to this, has a lot more to gain, and I can't believe that it would all that costly to petition the USPTO for the review.

This doesn't just smell fishy, it stinks to high heaven. Another interesting add to this, as someone else pointed out, is their attacking PR/article only mentions PTSC. Not Alliacense, not TPL - just PTSC. That's just strange.

Also, the ignorance displayed in their PR.... Raise the cost of chips to ultimately harm the US public at large? Um, Intel and AMD, two major chip manufactures, have already settled. So now they are going to raise prices to a significant degree? Did they, after settling? Prices have probably dropped. Any chip cost increases, I would argue, will be the result of J3/ARM resistance. They chose not to settle.

One last thought: the focus here is totally on the '336 patent. One of four (?) in dispute. So even if we get screwed out of the '336, infringement, I suspect, is still whistling in the wind. In other words, IF (big IF - 'cuz we KNOW nuttin') the '336 gets dropped, nobody's off the hook - the hook just got smaller, but equally effective.

All just observations I find interesting.

SGE