Deb,

Sorry it took so long to respond. I cannot post at work.

I can only speculate given the few facts that are presented to us. I think they infringed a lot, but the key point is how did we represent that in discovery. I say that because of all the motions between the parties concerning discovery. The issue concerning chip families, and infringeing chips was a major screw-up. Although we were given additional time to list each chip, I really don't know how successful we were in listing all chips that infringe. I think we were overwhelmed in paper work and were caught off- guard. If I recall, one of TPL reponses was that during negoiations with the J's, chip families was an acceptable form of dialog, it only became a problem during discovery. We got snookered by them and were led into a trap. Additionally, I don't know how the issue of patent exhaustion was, or even if it was, considered and taken into account during settlement.

It may be that there is going to be a standardized way to determine infringement.I still think that is what the T3 case is all about, tranparency. Also,The licenses for Feb. not being included in the last 10Q seems very suspicious to me. It almost seems that things are put on hold for now for some reason.

I also think ARM will be revisted in the future. We were not prepared to fully deal with them and the J's at the same time. Not just the 584, but also the 336 and 148.

I wish I knew more, but my quess is as good as yours.