Thanks hai - you are the best...

Reason I ask doni about 445 was because we know SSDs/USBFlash claims are asserted due to 'portable' per 108; the last round targeted those types but it brings with it all the underlying asserted claims of ram/circuitry/buttons even power i/o as pointed out. I implied chipsters when I first seen these companies announced, but after looking they were all named primarily pertaining to portability, ie fusionIo removable server componets, intel/ssd, kingston/usb etc,.

However those chips Quallcom has in every phone working in conjunction with primary/ram/flash-circuitry could be a huge target also with 445 if not under heading of hanheld/portable; and not just on the Q. The CE judgement deemed the flash patents seperate from each other, and I don't see portable mentioned in 445, it's a system per a device.

But I supose if that was possible it would been attemped first. That really would get at the glue. But with this new technology we don't know how much of the microprocessor is flash and how it's intertwined... ergo ron's post about they have to prove assertions for payout. BlueSands surly must be hard at work; and I can't blame you for not keeping up, it's too complex and dynamic; the nunchi tech gets even worse.

Reminds me of intel/miscrodoft stock - some the most technical stuff remaining flat for years on end; then you see an innovator like apple create hands on coolness that/then excels... others follow.

Memory serves me right - we had apple per 774/737 per circuitry n tried to say ram was removable; they pulled CE and we let them slide; I can't wait see how we hit them again with 108; and revisit many others.

I may not remember everything, but I stick around and emit thoughts that may/may not hit home; just another lil part of this great community. I'd much rather the Q partner to build nunchi/ms than sue... And now we have much much better barginning power. And IMO building strength.

e