All,

Since we have nothing but time waiting for the msj and hopefully trial I'll post a question that I've considered since the beginning. The first is an engineering question and the second is a legal one. This may prove my absolute ignorance of engineering and law but

1.From an engineering standpoint- Is it possible to construct a chip without the variable clock and if so why dont we have someone construct one and see how it works. If such a chip does not run at normal speeds then would this not be strong objective evidence the clock is absolutely necessary. If it is impossible to construct said chip-why not? If we could get any expert to say its impossible to construct a chip without the clock would this not be fairly strong subjetive evidence to the jury layperson that it wouldnt be on the chip if it does nothing. Its hard to have it all ways- Its there, it doesnt infringe, and it doesnt do anything and we cant remove it.

2. Is it possible to make a legal argument "Fine if you think the clock doesnt work then dont use it in your chips" As patent holders cant we ask someone to stop using our patented technology in their product if their not paying us?

All right you engineers and lawyers- let me have it

Tucci