I've been trying to nail down the Js thought process on the Shaw/Hamilton/Higgins "non-debackle".  This is aside from the timeframe conflicts that we've noted, and the "value" of statements by Shaw.  Corrections to the below are solicited, as well as answers to any questions that arise.  My apologies for seemingly scattered thoughts - hopefully responses can be provided on a paragraph by paragraph basis (I'll number 'em).

1. Apparently the Js are pointing to supposed "issues" in the prosecution of the patents (specifically the '336) with the USPTO.  Milestone has suggest that all the associated "testomony" of Shaw is somehow protected via ACP.  I'm not sure I get that (help!).  However, it seems that Higgins would have been the conduit for anything (info/docs) passing from PTSC or TPL/Moore to the USPTO (I'll come back to this aspect).  But we read of Shaw's "misrepresentations", suggesting direct contact between he and the USPTO examiner.  Where does ACP fit in here? 

2. Shaw/Hamilton:  How/where did the Js get this juicey dirt about Shaw's "thoughts" and Hamilton?  Is this public record (and if so, why?)?.  How is it admissible (guess we'll find that out via Ward's ruling)?  Did the Js somehow "get to" Shaw and/or Hamilton to get this stuff?

3.  It seems to me any beefs the Js have with the prosecution (obtaining) the patents would be beefs with PTSC (only) and the USPTO.  Further, it seems that the true "wrongdoing" (if there was any) was ultimately the fault of the USPTO (i.e., they made the decisions).  The Js seem to claim that Shaw withheld his (1992) "feelings" about the usefullness/utility and useability of the '336 (in 1998), as applied to one specific chip (ShBoom).  This appears very weak.  But the other aspect of delayed input/responses to the USPTO (the abandonment issues) were obviously no problem for the USPTO - they approved the patents.  So, with this aspect, isn't it more a beef with the USPTO?  They knowingly approved the patents in spite of any delayed responses or any other actions of PTSC.  So isn't this line of thought suggesting that ultimately the beef is between the Js and the USPTO?  Would this not bring a great deal of "discomfort" to Ward if he allowed this deliberation?  (Fed entity "against" another Fed entity).

4.  How does TPL, the "other half" of patent ownership, fit into all of this?  I'm assuming that Higgins was representing both Fish/PTSC and Moore/TPL through this entire process, and that both owner entities would be coorperatively involved in the patent application/prosecution process.  But Moore/TPL is absent from the "discussion" in the PACERS.  If there were a real problem with PTSC acting timely to provide info, via Higgins, to the USPTO, doesn't it seem there would be a record of TPL screaming about it?  After all, these things would put the patent applicatiuoins at risk for BOTH owners, would they not?  I guess what I'm getting at is that IF there were a perceived problem in timely submitting anything to the USPTO, that TPL (with their in-house legal expertise, even then) would have been all over it to protect their interests (assuming they were truly interested, and I would think they were, or why bother with patent application?).

I'll spare you a migrain (which may already be setting in) and stop here.  Again, somewhat scattered thoughts/questions towards trying to sort out all this crap.  Any assistance will be appreciated....

'Cuz I KNOW nuttin'!

Answers and clarity to my liking would be....

Ex-cell-ent!

SGE