I agree that a buy-out of ARM would include consideration of ARM's client list, and I did not include such consideration in my post.

As for:

"Seeing how ARM's tech is built largely, if not totally, on the tech of the MMP, ..."

Your conclusion is completely unsubstantiated, and so far, legally, unfortunately, ARM has rebuffed all our efforts at infringment [I'm sure you mean accusations of infringement of to-be-validated, again, patents].

Two things:

First, I recall reviewing some of ARM's patents apps years ago, and they reference specific elements of the MMP.

Second, haven't some of ARM's customers become licensees of the MMP. Not that is real substantiation of anything, but one could conclude....

As for:

"We shall see, but your use of the word "Essential" does not necessarily carry with it the technological equilivent of being a necessary engineering requirement, which translates into ARM's infringing products being nonfunctional or critically hampered without the MMPs inclusion, should some other type of available but different clocking(+) mechanism be used instead."

And what other clocking mechanism might that be? The on-chip ring oscillator IS IT. Having talked to EEs about this, and having read this board, I've yet to hear even a hint of a viable alternative.

And in case I was unclear, I was not suggesting that Apple was going to knock on our door and offer £5.2bn for a license or for PTSC or PTSC/TPL. However, though I don't really want to do down this path, IF Apple did make such an offer and it were accepted, they would acquire OUR clients/infringers as well. And I KNOW that infringers of the MMP far outnumber ARM's clients, past, present or future. ARM's clients would merely be a small subset.

Apologies for format issues. When I copy/pasted from your post the system apparently "locked on", and would not unlock.

FWIW,

SGE