I hear ya, but when we first heard of the questioning/analogy re: "varying together", the responses suggested in my post were my first, immediate thoughts at the time. I thought it sounded like the Judge was setting up Cook to respond exactly this way.  It was a perfect opportunity to describe, as I did in my post, how such closely integrated, essential components would perform better operating in the exact same environment - and to hit the two things impacting their performance, "workload" and heat. 

Though, as acknowledged in my post, Cook may have feared mis-speaking and further confusing matters by conflicting with previously provided written input to the court (which is a valid concern, more so if this had actually been a complex concept).  But the Judge asked the question and provided the analogy for a reason - seeking clarity.  That clarity was not provided.

And IMO this is not a complex concept. Heck, I get it, and I'm pretty ignorant in this field. The ONLY thing that surprises me on this one is that the Judge actually sought clarity on this.  That's kind of scary.

On the other item, you're right, time has pasted.  But I didn't KNOW about the "groupedness" issue till I read the transcript that Wolf so kindly provided.  I admittedly assume this was with regard to the "Multiple Instruction Fetch" patent, which may be incorrect (but the context makes sense).  Again, my immediate thought was "they're dissecting the word 'group' (more than one) in a discussion of 'multiple'?"  Any witty ten-year-old would have picked up on that. And my second thought - I believe the patent has to do with a design that enables a capability, not causing an operating requirement (i.e., when multiple instructions need processing, incorporating this patented technology will enable most-efficient handling, but when only a single instruction needs processing this capability needn't be exercised). That understood, I suppose the question Cook could have indirectly posed (i.e., through Ward) to the defendants would be "Do any of the chips in question EVER process more than one instruction at a time?" (I only just thought of that one). Again, to my way of thinking, a very simple thing.

And this is another disconcerting thing....The Judge could have jumped on this one.  He's had the written inputs, he's had expert testomony (other's, their's and his own), and should be reasonably "up to speed", and he permitted this BS discussion of "groupedness"? Again, this assumes I've got the context right.

These two things were the highlights of the Markman per the transcript. IF Cook could have responded as I suggest, which litigants would have clearly shined and which would have looked the fool?

Now I'm not saying that we came out of the Markman "looking the fool", I'm just suggesting that this may have been an opportunity lost. And it obviously makes me wonder just how sharp Ward actually is.  Yep, he has great credibility.  But the concept of "varying together" needed clarification?  Granted, this term/phrase taken alone could cause one to scratch their head for a second.  One second. But when the context was known? Give me a break...or cut me some.....!

Again, I do understand what you're saying - anyone can be a Monday morning quarterback.  But these guys (Cook) are paid for their ability to capitalize on opportunities to improve our stead, and are expected to be "fast on their feet".  Cook could have done much better.  SHOULD have, IMO, again acknowledging that I wasn't there, don't KNOW much about all the background info that may have been passed before or since or, in the one instance, whether I even have the context right.

Now look what you've done, Tom.  Another SGE novel for people to suffer through!

All JMHO with caveats up the....

SGE