Actually I do know someone that worked for Intel as an engineer in R&D, who recently finished his PHD at Columbia. You might remember, I had him review the Markman pre-ruling, and one of his major concerns was with justification for the "584, which as we now know, was a major stumbling block hence the removal of ARM from the litigation and immediate appeal of claim 29.

As far as TPL believing the "584 is the more blatant infringement of ARM, I am not sure where you got that. TPL/PTSC never filed suit against ARM, rather, ARM intervened on behalf of their clients, because their clients used ARM cores identified in the lawsuit against the J5. Until we see TPL file suit against ARM, we really don't know what TPL has in mind with ARM, but IMO, ARM has much more at stake than the "584, but time will tell.  

Also, as far as which patent predated another, remember, the majority of our patents originated from the 5440749 which was filed by Moore & Fish in 1989. I can't say for how this would play out, but I believe it works out to our advantage.

Head of the class..LOL..not interested, not qualified, not smart enough, not enough time, not..........long list of nots. I think we have a lot of folks who better qualify for this distinction that provide enough great info on this board to help us make educated decissions i.e. Ease, BaNosser, Wolf, Milestone, Fut, SGE, to name just a few.

I will take a look at your links later on this week, and see if I can find anything, but it will take a while being the time of the year. Today, I am barely able to sneak this post in and am surprised I am not getting chewed out yet for being on the PC. LOL

Merry Christmas! Good luck to you, me, us, and all longs.