"(1) " We have all the basic intellectual property (IP) for NAND floating gate which is what Samsung is doing. Samsung is now citing its own inventions as prior art.”."

There argument is over the gate characteristics....we're not involved in that physical transistor structure.

"(2) SAMSUNG says we have our own prior art that we relied on to invent this "Floating gate"...THAT IS THEIR DEFENSE.."

I'm not following their individual structured patented arguments. It's not about us when it come to the physical characteristics of memory.

"(3) EDIG IP we used by TI in their chips which they sold to SAMSUNG which SAMSUNG used in their Camera's, MP3'S, ETC. as far back as CES 2000, (Rember a "KERNEL OF MOS" functioning as gate keeper)?..."

That argument is debatable, as it is not over the physical characteristics of memory, but it's use.

"functioning as gate keeper)?..."...lol... If you review my prior post with regard to setting the state of the transistors, you will/might understand that phrase.

Don't take this the wrong way, but so many are invested in something they have no idea what it's about.

As a gate keeper, we have nothing to do with the physical structure of the gates(switches)....we're involved in controlling the gates.

The IP argument of STANSION, is over the physical structure of the switch.

doni