THANKS DONI FOR MAKING CLEAR TO ME EXACTLY WHAT ""INTENT"" MEANT AS ESPOUSED BY MICRON IN THE RECENT COURT ACTION.

AS I SAID EARLIER IN MY REPORTING ON THE COURT PROCEEDINGS, MICRON SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON """INTENT""" AND WAS VERY SPECIFIC WHEN QUESTIONED BY JUDGE HUFF THAT MICRON'S BASIC IF NOT ENTIRE DEFENSE WOULD BE BASED ON INTENT.

MICRON IS MAKING A CLAIM THAT THE ENTIRE BASIS OF 108 WAS BASED ON PRIOR ART AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE PTO AND WAS NOT THEREFORE THE ENTIRE PATENT IS INVALID AND THEY CANNOT BE FOUND TO INFRINGE.

I DO BELIEVE DONI AND PURCELL HAVE DEBUNKED THAT CLAIM WITH MANY, MANY, FACTS THAT CANNOT BE DISCOUNTED BY THE COURT. (HOWEVER WE ALL KNOW THE COURTS)

I WAS JUST STRUCK WITH A HUGE BLAST OF COMMON SENSE (WHICH MAYBE MOST OF YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD) THAT MICRON'S DEFENSE OF PREPONDERANTLY USING """INTENT""' SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER THEY HAVE ACTUALLY INFRINGED....MICRON MENTIONS NOTHING ABOUT BEING INNOCENT OF USING EDIG'S ""IP""..

IN MY MIND (TRYING TO USE A LITTLE COMMON SENSE HERE) MICRON IS ADMITTING TO INFRINGING AND KNOWS IT MOST LIKELY WILL LOSE A COURT CASE THEREFORE IS CHANGING IT'S DEFENSE TO INVALIDATE THE ENTIRE 108 PATENT BY COMPLETELY CHANGING THE SUBJECT.

IF THIS IS INDEED THE CASE (WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE?) WHEN THIS GOES AGAINST THEM, AS IT SHOULD, THE CASE IS OVER.

NOT ONLY WILL MICRON LOSE BUT THE MANY OTHER INFRINGERS HANGING ON THEIR COATAILS SHOULD BE DONE ALSO. HOW CAN MICRON THEN CLAIM """WE DID NOT INFRINGE""" WHEN THE CASE IS OVER..

A LOT IS RIDING ON """INTENT""" BEING PROVEN TO BE WHAT IT IS, (S*IT AGAINST THE WALL)