Bean..You read my mind I swear...Remember, this was an ``Away game`` for PTSC playing in INTC`s home ballpark. That said, I must admit I am not totally suprised.

Curious as to what were the grounds for disqualifying B&O. Did they say something flammable in court or did the opposition succeed in portraying them as NYC gunslingers invading laid-back California?..Certainly, paying Higgins $35-50k upfront undermined Higgins (Who accepted the ``expert witness``, and B&O for offering the payment), for the testimony in the view of the judge. I thought that payment smelled from the get go. Obviously, the judge picked up on it too.

Cynically,perhaps the judge will only accept California Law firms to represent PTSC..``Justice delayed is Justice denied`` applies here. How can the judge expect PTSC go to trial now?..Based on throwing out the legal counsel and Higgins testimony, the judge`s initial impression appears to be that PTSC does not have much of a case. The arguments they put forth rightly or wrongly failed to convince the judge of Higgins impartiality. How can anyone reasonably conclude otherwise?? Expect a lengthy delay!!

If Higgins notes are admissable, won`t he be a tainted witness under cross-examination??..This case just got alot tougher and will take many months at the very least to settle. We need a change of venue!!..Unfortunately, there is a 0% chance of this happening..Very discouraging ....

This will put the SHM in a whole new negative light..Interesting to see how Lowell spins this one!!

I`m sure they are popping the corks at TPL..At worst case though, PTSC still owns 50% of the patent today...Will this be a race to the bottom is a good question??..Certainly, a major setback...Will AMD`s position and/or faith in PTSC change??..The text of the agreement is still unknown..

Still holding, but look out below near-term...Not even a PTSC fluff piece can make a silk purse out of a sow`s ear on this one.

Virt