From RB and IHB boards. I think it is great DD. -Debi

DC, you know me. Anyway, I've followed PTSC for a couple years. I first mentioned PTSC to Modern when it was like 0.03 when they wanted to strike a smart card deal in China. The stock caught my eyes. Then I got more and more into this company. It could be the next AEXCA - AEXCA was the stock I mentioned in my first post on IHUB when it was trading at the pennies. Be patient to read some of these boring stuff below :-)

After the settlement made between AMD and PTSC, it sets an example of what to come between PTSC and INTEL, then you'll see the similar settlment between PTSC and these Japanese companies to come.

Of all the companies currently incorporating this essential component in their products, none hold the patent other than Patriot Scientific. With an IP portfolio of eleven patents and more pending this small company in San Diego California has one patent of particular interest, specifically Patent No. 5,809,336, "High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock." "A single processor that is half the size, consumes half the power and delivers twice the performance of other 32-bit RISC microprocessors"

Before continuing reading this showcase please read the following recent article by Brian Mudge of C-Net - http://news.com.com/2010-1014-5143922.html?tag=nefd_acpro and now the following PR's - "Patriot Scientific's patent portfolio encompasses the fundamental workings of well over $18 billion dollars worth of microprocessors sold in the United States last year. From the time the patents were issued, the company estimates that over $150 billion dollars worth of microprocessors have made use of Patriot Scientific's technology." -

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040126/flm015_1.html http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040107/flw014_1.html PTSC, - Integrity appears to be a mainstay of their business plan -http://www.ptsc.com/

A little history of the origin of some of their IP - Effective May 31, 1994, the Company entered into an asset purchase agreement and plan of reorganization with NanoTronics Corporation located in Eagle Point, Oregon and Helmut Falk. The Company issued a total of 10,000,000 restricted common shares to NanoTronics to acquire certain microprocessor technology of NanoTronics. The technology acquired, the ShBoom technology, is being used to develop a sophisticated, yet low-cost microprocessor. Hence, the birth of the Ignite family of microprocessors. "fundamental microprocessor technology "

Patriot Scientific is an intellectual property company developing and marketing innovative and proprietary semiconductor technologies into the fast growing hand held wireless and smart card markets. The company's portfolio of patents encompasses what is believed to be fundamental microprocessor technology and includes additional patents pending to protect its technology and architecture.

Patriot Scientific is the developer of the IGNITE?family of microprocessors, the industry's smallest and most powerful 32-bit RISC microprocessor devices. The IGNITE technology is based on a unique dual stack architecture that delivers a low cost, general purpose and Java environment in a single processor that is half the size, consumes half the power and delivers twice the performance of other 32-bit RISC microprocessors. The company believes these metrics will become increasingly important as the industry seeks energy-efficient high performance processor solutions.

The company's technology is fundamentally different from other microprocessors in that it employs the combined features from both register and stack designs creating an architecture that improves performance for a wide range of embedded applications. Due to its innovative and simplistic design, PTSC's technology enables manufacturers to replace less efficient control devices, add functionality and reduce cost. These applications also enable manufacturers of cell phones, smart cards, remote controls, appliances, portable computers and devices, motor controls, automotive systems and many others to differentiate their products.The Company has ended its research and development activity, and chosen to focus on licensing its patented technology

CEO audio webcast -
http://www.macreport.net/ceo_int/ceoint_asp.asp?symbol=PTSC

Another item of interest is their radar technology patent to visually penetrate the ground or structures to find various objects. Being in the commercial electrical trade I know such products already exist in the way of X-ray technology, but is very expensive, yet an indispensable tool (every reputable contractor has at least one). It really is more of a safety issue when coring through concrete slabs - the risk of cutting a post tension line is not an option. I've heard many stories of death and dismemberment from an uncoiling tension line. Not to mention "smurf" (because of it's typical blue color) electrical conduit which runs through the majority of newer concrete buildings. This radar technology may be developed as an economical alternative to the existing X-ray equipment, which I believe would be well received in the construction industry among others. This area of their IP is currently idle, but certainly not obsolete.

Good read on Intellectual Property in the semiconductor industry -

http://www.reed-electronics.com/eb-mag/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA371011&rid=0&....

Patriot Scientific's publicist is The Hawk Associates
American Microcap Institute

Who, according to their website presents only companies with credible business plans and realistic prospects for commercial success. -
http://www.hawkmicrocaps.com/ Commentary, IMHO: If you like to bet the dark horse-long shot once in a while, then this play is right up your alley. Of course the odds are a little different here than "the track." Even I like to buy a lotto ticket every now and again, only when the pay off in dollars exceeds the odds. Should PTSC win their collective suits against these five colossal defendants, they would garner several hundred million dollars in tax free cash over night plus instant ongoing revenue in the form of licensing and royalties, gain national exposure in free advertising worth millions and unprecedented global attention from the investment community in the process. I'm looking forward to see just about every major publication there is pick up on this story of the little company with a little microprocessor taking on some of the biggest companies in the industry.

The following article was published after I finished putting this piece together...If your still interested - a must see.
The San Diego Union Tribune Tue, Feb 3rd 2004 - http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/tue/business/news_1b3patriot.html

It's not unusual for a microprocessor company to suddenly find that its patents are worth more than its products. Jim Turley, a Patriot adviser and semiconductor industry consultant, in regard to PTSC's patent infringement lawsuits against Sony, NEC, Toshiba, Fujitsu And Matsushita (Panasonic.)
"They've (PTSC) discovered in their vault that they have what appear to be some pretty defensible patents in the way chips are made," Turley continued - "From my point of view, they appear to have a solid case. But how these things play out in the end is anybody's guess". So, who is Jim Turley and what does he know about this industry? -

http://www.jimturley.com/about/Jim%20Turley%20Bio%20v3.pdf http://www.jimturley.com/si/current.htm#link1
It appears that Intel is feeling the heat - this out on Fri, 02/06/04 - http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040206/flf003_1.html

You look this up you will see that INTEL has openly used variable speed clocking on their processors. funny they never claimed to have invented it . or patent it. Then suddenly in 1999 they developed what they call speed step. which is the same basic thing. and they say they developed this . no claim of a patent to protect this key fundamental processing that is the heart of all their processors.

we know why. and they do also. PTSC had a patent pending on this tech. for years it got held up for ever in legal battles and the patent office dragging their feet.

I don't think Intel ever thought that ptsc would ever get this patent awarded to them.

Intel has been sued many times before for infringement and has lost in court and also settled cases, out of court.

How about someone doing a little homework on patents and see what intel holds. all these big company's love to steal tech. microsoft is the biggest thief.

Funny indeed, Intel cannot patent it because it already belongs to Patriot Scientific # 5,809,336, otherwise...you know they would have. Hell, I think the only entities that have more patents are IBM and GOD. So, I decided to take elkman1310's advice and look it up for myself.
Due Diligence; when searching for information I almost always hit a dead end, but every so often I come across a find that makes it all worth while. I ran a search on the very title of PTSC's patent 5,809,336 "High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock."

Low and behold, among the returns were a couple of very old sites (1996 - one year after PTSC filled for patent 5,809,336) by ARM (Advanced RISC Machines Ltd) and Digital Semiconductor -- development collaborators of Intel (among many others). In the text it goes on to describe features and functions of this NEW Intel StrongARM SA-110 Microprocessor, the FIRST member of the StrongARM family of high performance, low power microprocessors, the very foundation in which most of their microprocessors are built today. (registered trademarked - NOT patented)

When I first read this information, after I had read PTSC's patent, I swear, it gave me goosebumps -- the best goosebumps I've ever had. There are many notable correlation's, one I particularly like is: excerpt from Intel StrongARM SA 110 Datasheet 1996 --"Clocks --The SA-110 receives 3.68-MHz clock from a crystal based clock generator. The SA-110 uses an internal phase-locked loop (PLL) to multiply the frequency by a veriable multiplier to produce a high speed clock. The high speed clock is then divided internally by a configureable ratio to provide a system clock for synchronous operation. The 3.68MHz oscillator and PLL run constantly in normal and idle mode." Note -- the header for "Clocks" is plural and the clock is "divided" to create a second clock for synchronous operation. Excerpts from PTSC's U.S. Patent 5,809,336 1995 --"A high performance, low cost microprocessor system having a variable speed system clock is disclosed herein. The microprocessor system includes an integrated circuit having a central processing unit and a ring oscillator variable speed system clock for clocking the microprocessor. The central processing unit and ring oscillator variable speed system clock each include a plurality of electronic devices of like type, which allows the central processing unit to operate at a variable processing frequency dependent upon a variable speed of the ring oscillator variable speed system clock. The microprocessor system may also include an input/output interface connected to exchange coupling control signals, address and data with the central processing unit. The input/output interface is independently clocked by a second clock connected thereto." & "Most microprocessors derive all system timing from a single clock. The disadvantage is that different parts of the system can slow all operations. The microprocessor 50 provides a dual-clock scheme as shown in FIG. 17, with the CPU 70 operating a synchronously to I/O interface 432 forming part of memory controller 118 (FIG. 2) and the I/O interface 432 operating synchronously with the external world of memory and I/O devices. The CPU 70 executes at the fastest speed possible using the adaptive ring counter clock 430. Speed may vary by a factor of four depending upon temperature, voltage, and process. The external world must be synchronized to the microprocessor 50 for operations such as video display updating and disc drive reading and writing. This synchronization is performed by the I/O interface 432, speed of which is controlled by a conventional crystal clock 434
Excerpt from Intel/ARM/Digital SA-110 Datasheet -- "The Digital Semiconductor 110-SA microprocessor (SA-110) is the first member of the StrongARM family of high-performance, low power microprocessors. The SA-110 is the latest implementation of advanced RISC Machines Ltd. (ARM) Version 4 architecture and offers significant advances in microprocessor design. The SA-110 has been designed to further extend the ARM family as the worlds leading source of low power, high performance RISC processors for embedded consumer markets such as smart hand held devices and interactive digital video. The SA-110 is a general purpose, 32-bit microprocessor with a 16KB instruction cache (Icache); a 16KB, write-back data cache (Dcache); a write buffer; and a memory management unit (MMU) combined in a single chip"

Excerpt PTSC Patent -- "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Overview

The microprocessor of this invention is desirably implemented as a 32-bit microprocessor optimized for:

HIGH EXECUTION SPEED, and

LOW SYSTEM COST.

In this embodiment, the microprocessor can be thought of as 20 MIPS (million instructions per second)
for 20 dollars. Important distinguishing features of the microprocessor are:

Uses low-cost commodity DYNAMIC RAMS to run 20 MIPS

4 instruction fetch per memory cycle

On-chip fast page-mode memory management

Runs fast without external cache

Requires few interfacing chips

Crams 32-bit CPU in 44 pin SOJ package

The instruction set is organized so that most operations can be specified with 8-bit instructions. Two positive products of this philosophy are:

Programs are smaller,

Programs can execute much faster.

The bottleneck in most computer systems is the memory bus. The bus is used to fetch instructions and fetch and store data. The ability to fetch four instructions in a single memory bus cycle significantly increases the bus availability to handle data.



...Another excerpt
of great interest --"More recently, it has been perceived that performance gains can be achieved through comparative simplicity, both in the microprocessor integrated circuit itself and in its instruction set. This second approach provides RISC microprocessors, and is exemplified by the Sun SPARC and the Intel 8960 microprocessors. However, even with this approach as conventionally practiced, the packages for the microprocessor are large, in order to accommodate the large number of pinouts that continue to be employed. A need therefore remains for further simplification of high performance microprocessors."


I invite you to browse through PTSC's IP Portfolio, paying special attention to # 5,809,336 --
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search.... ... And then Intel's SA-110 Datasheets -- http://www.renan.org/ARM/doc/sa110pb.pdf -- On this next one, click on the icon of the largest paper with folded corner. -- http://developer.intel.com/design/strong/datashts/27823001.pdf


Some of Intel's products today (Any features sound familiar?) -- http://www.intel.com/design/iio/index.htm?iid=ipp_embed_proc+prod_iop&
http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/252780.htm
A bit of History -- June 23, 1996
Source: Bruce V. Bigelow -- You might say Woody Norris is waiting for his chip to come in.Nine years ago, the Poway inventor founded Patriot Scientific to develop his idea for a ground-penetrating radar that could be used to identify subterranean features from an aircraft. Theoretically, such a radar could be used to search for everything from deep-underground oil fields and mineral deposits to buried structures, utilities and even land mines just beneath the surface. Now a proprietary microprocessor that Patriot acquired for its radar two years ago could take the little startup company in a whole new direction.Norris, 57, says the high-speed microprocessor--named "ShBoom" after a 1954 jukebox tune--is perfect for running Java, an innovative programming language for the Internet designed by Sun Microsystems."The chip fits with Java like this," Norris says, holding aloft his hands with fingers dovetailed.On Wall Street, investors have likewise embraced the idea.On May 17, the price of stock in Patriot Scientific hit a record $4.03 per share on the Nasdaq electronic exchange--almost 26 times its year-ago price of 15 cents per share. Last week, the stock hovered at about $3 trading on an average volume of roughly 230,000 shares a day. Yet, the ShBoom processor's compatibility with Java was completely unforeseen--and unintended.'A bluebird'"One of my partners would refer to this as 'a bluebird,'" says Willis E. Higgins, a Palo Alto patent attorney who represents Patriot. "It's something that just comes along. A stroke of luck."The ShBoom processor was conceived more than a decade ago by Charles Moore, who invented the "Fourth" programming language for computers, and Russell H. Fish III, a computer consultant and chip designer.After years of working on the project, Fish and Moore sold all rights to the ShBoom processor to the late Helmut Falk, a Romanian-born engineer who co-founded DH Technology, a high-technology printer manufacturer now based in San Diego.By several accounts, Falk poured millions of dollars into improving the ShBoom design through NanoTronics, his wholly owned company based in Eagle Point, Ore.Falk was not known among executives at San Diego electronic firms. But business partners described him as a savvy businessman and world traveler who owned estates in San Diego, Oregon, Costa Rica, Switzerland, Florida and Puerto Rico. He spoke German, French, Italian, Spanish and English.In 1994, NanoTronics merged with Patriot in a deal intended to combine Norris' radar technology with Falk's high-speed processor."We liked the idea of pairing the chip with the radar," Norris recalls.As part of the deal, Falk received 10 million shares of Patriot's stock and took over as Patriot's chairman and chief executive. Norris, who also founded Norris Communications and American Technology, says he was happy to withdraw from Patriot's day-to-day operations.Then, Falk died unexpectedly of cancer last July 6."I talked to him a few weeks before he died, and he said he really wanted to develop this chip," says Don Hebert, who co-founded DH Technology with Falk. "He thought it was going to be a hot-shot thing that nobody else had."
IMHO -- He was right. It's just that nobody wanted to pay for it.
Moore & Fish knew what they had and wrote the text body of U.S. Patent 5,809,336 in great detail, leaving no stone unturned and closing all loopholes to the best of their knowledge. Intel tried to skirt around this patent by using the pipeline technique for instruction set rather than PTSC's stack approach, yet they did use PTSC's high performance, low cost microprocessor system having a variable speed system clock. Without this fundamental element clearly patented by PTSC long before Intel or anybody else used it, there simply would not be RISC microprocessors operating above 110MHz today. That is, other than Patriots Ignite family of microprosessors.

I am not an attorney or a computer scientist, but I can discern the obvious. In light of what I have seen, no Judge will stop this case from being heard, and no jury could possibly deny the truth to PTSC's claims. There has been talk of the application and interpretation of PTSC's IP as being possibly "too broad." From what I have seen PTSC's IP has not only been infringed upon; this is a case of blatant, willful, contemplated, deliberate, DEAD NUTS grand theft. Violated on so many levels, in the highest degree. It is sad commentary of ethics in big business today when willful infringement is seen as good business. You know whatever all these collective companies pay out in damages and future royalties will not even come close to the total figure that PTSC would have realized if they rightfully received licensing fees and royalties from the beginning. The bottom line is, despite being sued, paying future royalties, court costs and legal fees...these companies still come out ahead, and they knew it from the start. The only thing that is "too broad" about this case is the level of sheer size and scope that PTSC's IP has been violated. The six companies currently standing in as defendants are just the tip of the iceberg. there will be more to come -- IBM, Motorola, AMD the list goes on and on. That could change of course if these companies start coming forward with settlements to avert costs associated with litigation and possibly gain better licensing deals from PTSC for products they already sell. I can see why the PTSC's legal team is working on contingency and seeking treble or triple damages for willful, intentional infringement.

I encourage all of those who are considering buying in, or who are already in and planning on selling out on a mere double or triple to disregard my opinion and objectively compare PTSC's patents and the fundamental building platform in which Intel and much of the industry has developed their current line of microprocessors, and if you come to the same conclusion as have I and decide to go deep for the long bomb, then I will take the liberty to quote a poster from another board ... "you can thank me later" More on Charles Moore: The founding father of the "Fourth programming language for computers" and CO-inventor Patent 5,809,336 --
http://www.colorforth.com/resume.html

Is it a lock? -- no such thing. Is there risk? sure is. Do I like PTSC's chances and more importantly mine? HELL YES! Good luck to all...in or out.

Dec 6, 1999 -- "Intel is preparing a variable clock-speed technology it calls SpeedStep"
http://www.mdronline.com/mpr_public/editorials/edit13_16.html

December 15, 1999 -- "According to Intel, this delivers the best of both worlds: low power in battery mode, near-desktop performance when plugged in. AMD plans to deliver its own variable-speed technology, known as Gemini, in 1H00" -- http://www.mdronline.com/publications/mpw/issues/mpw029.html


"A high performance, low cost microprocessor system having a variable speed system clock is disclosed herein"... -- U.S. Patent 5,809,336. Proprietary owner -- Patriot Scientific -- http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search.... May I remind you that Intel, AMD nor any other company using this essential method of invention owns the Patent.
The definition of a clock in terms of microprocessors -- [The number of pulses emitted from a computer's clock in one second; it determines the rateat which logical or arithmetic gating is performed in a synchronous computer]
"Two Integer Arithmetic Logic Units simultaneously take two sequential instructions of up to 32 bits each from the Instruction Decode Unit" -- .Phil. Storr, on the Pentium chip, last updated 26th December 1998 --
http://members.iweb.net.au/~pstorr/pcbook/book1/pentium.htm


Tony Smith -- The Register -- 'Will it get them? Maybe, but we doubt it will get that far. After much toing and froing, both sides will, we suspect, agree to an out-of-court settlement centering on a deal that will give each firm access to the other's intellectual property. Certainly, that's how many of these kinds of cases are resolved. We will watch the fight's progress with interest. ? --
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/51/35514.html

Russel H. "Cap" Beatie graduated from Princeton University and Columbia Law School, has been a trial lawyer in New York City for more than three decades, and is the author of several articles and books, including Road to Manassas (Cooper Square, 1961), and The Army of the Potomac, Vol. One: Birth of Command, September 1860 - September 1861 (Da Capo, 2002). His interest in the Civil War first began at a young age when he read Douglas Southall Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants:燗 Study in Command. A Kansas native and former lieutenant in the field artillery and infantry, Cap has lived in the New York City area most of his life. He has completed the second volume of his Army of the Potomac series, and is currently writing the third installment. Beatie qoute on PTSC -- "It seems to me the market loves their product, they just don't want to pay for it." Beatie said the Patriot case is similar to patent litigation over bar coding technology filed by the estate for the late inventor Jerome Lemelson. Lemelson never actually developed a commercial bar code system, but he filed and amended a series of patents for the technology over decades. Lemelson then filed patent infringement lawsuits against retailers, computer makers and other industries that use "machine vision" technology. Lawyers in the case have said some 1,000 companies signed licensing agreements and paid Lemelson more than $1.5 billion. "What he did is a model for anybody who has a situation like this," Beatie said. "He did a lot of careful thinking and a lot of trial and error. We are familiar with his cases and would look to following his successes and avoiding his errors."

IMO - I believe Mr. Beatie has a strategic plan of attack by suing the 5 Japanese companies first rather than going directly after Intel, he has successfully provoked Intel to file declaratory judgment. In doing so this accomplishes at least three positive goals for the advancement of the case. 1. When Intel files suit, it gets heard much sooner. 2. Obviously there is no way of predicting what decision will be handed down at any juncture of litigation, however in regard to Intels attempt to stop the collective suits against the big five, I believe it is very very likely that the Court will rule in favor of allowing the cases to be heard based on the merit of the claims. When this happens, it will give the claims a higher degree of credibility as the focus turns away from Intel and back to the original five defendants, who have a track record of settling early rather than going through lengthy court battles. 3. In the event that one or all Japanese companies settle and/or are found guilty of infringement, then Intel and the rest of the industry will be at a clear disadvantage as a precedent of validity will have been set.


The several hundred million dollars mentioned in Patriots PR's does not include Intel. Intel was the first to use variable speed clocking and all others followed. Does anyone find it just a little strange that Intel did not patent it? Just because everyone is doing something wrong does not make it right. In no way can I nor anyone else predict the outcome of these lawsuits. IMO - in accessing the risk verses reward ratio; what we basically have here is a penny stock company with a market cap under $20M who recently was awarded full and outright ownership of a patent that appears to be potentially worth billions of dollars who is vigorously setting out to defend. This is exactly what I look for in my aggressive investment criteria, Finally, in answering your question; I agree with the Register in that there will be a settlement, but not for swapping IP "assuming the best outcome" -- PTSC gets every penny they ask for. A more realistic outcome would be that those who settle early will have an incentive of gaining a much more favorable deal, probably in the neighborhood of $50 million plus per defendant with market rates on licensing and royalties for current and future sales. Intel on the other hand may drag it out to the eleventh hour, but it should be noted that the amount PTSC is seeking from Intel in damages has not been disclosed as of yet. If the Intel/Patriot trial goes the full duration, in the event of a willful infringement ruling, then whatever the that amount is, it will be triple.

Make no mistake about it, the rest of the Industry is silently watching this case.

As this case unfolds it has become clear what the value of this one patent is. The Fish Estate fought for ownership, and lost. Now Moore, who (along with Fish) sold all rights to the ShBoom processor to the late Helmut Falk years ago is attempting to renege on the same legally binding sale that Fish failed to invalidate. IMO - Moore sees an opportunity now that PTSC stands to gain an unfathomable amount of money. It is obvious Moore does not have a case - his angle is to leverage a deal of compensation by means of impeding the legal proceedings. I believe the Court will see this at face value and rule in PTSC's favor. The following is an excerpt from the sworn affidavit by Jim Turley filed and notarized before the Judicial Panel on the Multidistrict Litigation encompassing the five Japanese companies: {3. I make this affidavit on the basis of my personal knowledge, my participation in the events described in it, the files in my office, and my investigation of the facts relating to the claims in this multidistrict litigation. 4. The basic invention covered by the 336 patent is a microprocessor system comprising a single integrated circuit including a central processing unit ("CPU") and an entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock in the circuit and connected to the CPU; an on chip input/output interface connected to exchange coupling control signals, addresses and data with CPU; and an external clock connected to the input/output interface and independent of the ring oscillator variable speed system clock. 5. Fifty laptop computers and DVD products manufactured, assembled and/or sold by defendants Fujitsu Microelectronics of America, Inc., NEC USA, Inc., Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, Sony Corporation of America and Toshiba America Inc., are at issue in this multidistrict litigation. 6. Forty-eight of the fifty (or ninety-six percent) of the laptop computers and DVD products include microprocessors which infringe the 336 Patent and which are manufactured by the same company, Intel Corporation ("Intel"). 7. Intel manufactures and provides defendants with microprocessors systems comprising a single integrated circuit including a CPU and an entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock in the circuit and connected to the CPU for clocking the CPU; and an on-chip input/output interface connected to exchange coupling control signals, addresses, and data with the CPU. 8. In the majority of products at issue the defendants provide an external clock independent of the ring oscillator variable speed system clock connected to the input/output interface. For certain products, Intel also provides the external clock. 9. These microprocessor systems supplied by Intel and contained in defendants' products at issue therefore infringe the 336 Patent } End of excerpt - IMO - Patriot has Intel dead to rights on this one, that is why Intel is now playing the only card they have by asking the Court to stay the pending patent infringement actions until the Moore ownership issue is resolved. I see a couple possible short term outcomes here: 1. (most likely) The Court sees through Moore's attempt and rules in favor of PTSC by granting summary judgment against Moore's ownership based on the previous litigation of Patriot vs Fish. 2. Patriot and Moore come to an agreement where Moore becomes a party to a share in the potential awards in which case I believe the worst case scenario would be 25% of the net proceeds being that he originally owned half of said Patent which he and Fish sold to Falk. There are so many possible outcomes in regard to how these cases collectively play out, but one thing is clear -- Intel knows when this case is heard they will loose and their only hope is to keep it out of Court. Intel is on the hook and they know it.
Court date by weeks end Fri Feb 04 in regard to testimony of Willis Higgins the former patent attorney of Fish and Moore. Well over a year ago the question was whether or not Intel and possibly hundreds of other companies had infringed on the 336 patent. At the time Intel publicly stated and more importantly stated to the court, flat out that they did not infringe the 336 patent, in fact Intel asked the court for declatory judgment to that effect. Just several months later on June 28th 2004 Intel signed the licensing agreement with Moore/TPL allowing Intel a worldwide license to make, have made, use, license, distribute and sell Intel products that practice the U.S. 5,809,336 Patent. Infringement: past present and future has been proved. The day they (Intel/Moore) signed this licensing agreement, they effectively shifted all the weight to the ownership case currently being heard before the Honorable Judge Fogle. IMO -- Intel declares to the world and the Court that they do not infringe the 336 then turn around and sign a contract in complete contradiction to their previous statements and Court filings. An obvious attempt to circumvent Justice and exploit a loophole in a back parlor deal adding to the long list of poor business ethics practiced by Intel. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1998/06/intelc.htm http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/04/16/intel_bang_to_rights/ Justice is the relentless pursuit of truth. Higgins testimony is the truth, no one is disputing this. PTSC wants this testimony in as evidence and Intel/Moore & CO do not. What does that tell you?

Dec 23, 2003 "The initial filings are seeking damages in excess of several hundred million dollars." From just the FIRST FOUR Japanese companies Sony, Fujitsu, Toshiba and NEC.
http://www.us.design-reuse.com/news/news6886.html

Jan 07, 2004 Patriot adds Matsushita to suit.
http://www.varbusiness.com/article/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=23902147


Feb. 2, 2004 Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy direct quote - "They had sued five of our customers," Mulloy said. "As we read [the suits], it became clear to us that our microprocessors don't infringe. So rather than wait for them to possibly sue us, we filed in the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement." Feb 11, 2004 Patriot Scientific adds Intel to its legal fight against five PC vendors. " From the time the patents were issued, the company estimates that over $150 billion dollars worth of microprocessors have made use of Patriot Scientific's technology." http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3311751

Apr 23, 2004 Patriot announces that it has sent notification to more than 150 additional companies of potential infringement of its U.S. Patent 5,809,336 http://www.us.design-reuse.com/news/news7707.html


Nov 11, 2004 Patriot rejects offer for processor patents "The company estimates the value to exceed $1 billion" http://www.electronicssm.com/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=52600945

Dec 8, 2004 Patriot Scientific learns of a license agreement dated June 28, 2004 between Intel Corporation and Charles H. Moore (Moore), TPL Micro Ltd. (TPL Micro) and Technology Properties Ltd. (TPL)(Moore, TPL Micro Ltd. and TPL are collectively the licensors). This agreement provides Intel with, among other things, a non-exclusive, irrevocable, non-terminable, worldwide license to make, have made, use, license, distribute and sell Intel products that practice the U.S. 5,809,336 Patent. NOTE Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy direct quote from Feb 2, 2004 above. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041208/flw007_1.html

climpse in to who Willis Higgins is and why he filed the 336 patent without removing Charles Moore's name, while we await the ruling from Judge Fogel in regard to whether or not Higgins testimony will be allowed. In patent litigation a good expert witness teaches judges and juries complex technologies, plans litigation strategy, and can even drive a case to settlement." http://www.ipww.com/texts/0804/smartpills0804.html IMO -- you just can't get any better than Jim Turley and Willis Higgins, OK, so we all know who Jim Turley is http://www.jimturley.com/index.htm and what his position in the infringement case is, hhttp://www.tlc.usm.maine.edu/about_us.html pending The Honorable Judge Fogel's ruling to allow his testimony in the ownership case.
A glimpse into Willis Higgins past expert testimony: Bruce Lehman was appointed by President Clinton to the position of Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks in 1993, http://www.cojk.com/resources/articl -detail.php?id=14 "Lehman's trademark knack for mastering the complex has put him in the ranks with President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, nearly 30 Members of Congress, two Supreme Court Justices, and almost a dozen Cabinet secretaries." www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/opa/pulse/9708.htm" target="_blank">http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/opa/pulse/9708.htm One of Commissioner Lehmans first daunting tasks in early 1994 was deciding the complex issue of whether or not software would be protected by patents or copyrights. http://www.ibiblio.org/patents/txt/ptosofpat2.txt Willis Higgins was the second to last expert witness offering testimony among 50 during two days of these hearings at the San Jose, CA Convention Center. Mr. Higgins expert opinion was that software should be patented.

"Thank you very much, Mr. Higgins, for taking the time
to think through all of this and give us your comments." -- U.S. PTO Commissioner Bruce Lehman -- http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/software/sanjose/sj_higgins.html Where ultimately Commissioner Lehman and the PTO agreed with Mr. Higgins point of view and the end result was in 1996 to allow patents for certain software applications. http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/patentable.html Very influential testimony leading to a very profound decision in the history of U.S. patent law.




http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6576917

Be well