My layman interpretation of Bilski is a patent that does not relate to a tangible idea, unlike a mechanism that interacts with the real world. I'm sure examples could be created that challenge that statement but I believe it is accurate. Bilski relates to more business method patents, which do not relate to the MMP as our portfolio demonstrates the architecture of a microprocessor, a tangible idea. I know you know that and I believe the reason you posted what you did was to get at how Judge Ware problem solves. By reading his paper, you can tell he is an intelligent guy who understands the intricacies of patent law. I believe whatever the Markman verdict, it will an honest effort based on the facts. Corrections welcome.