No. Simply saying that if amending the claim was preferable to leaving it as is, or the addition of all the extra claims, then TPL would've done it originally. They resisted, so apparently, they thought the patent was stronger with the tact they took originally, not with the amendment the ultimately settled for. As to the technical aspects, I don't understand them enough to speak to them one way or the other or to know how that might affect ARM's products vs. Fujitsu's products vs. Intel's products, etc. What I DO know is that the patent owner decided to try many other avenues other than amending the claim as they ultimately did, so I'd have to say they KNOW better than any of us, what was the STRONGEST form of the patent claim language, and ultimately, they compromised to something less than they were pushing for. I'm not stuck on the "weakened" vs. "strengthened" language, because what in some ways may have weakened it, to have arrived at the end of the process with an intact and enforceable, and in essence unchallengeble patent with respect to validity, allows TPL/PTSC to focus solely on infringement now. That makes their position much stronger in that sense.