Patented Intellectual Property Elemental to Virtually Every Microprocessor Design
Computers, servers, workstations, home theater systems, digital TVs, video games, DVD Recorders/Players, mobile handsets, automotive electronics and more...
Hub Controls
  • Demo Video
  • Upload Photo
  • Edit Company Profile
  • Add a Link
  • Update Fast Facts
  • Add Management Bios
  • Private Messages
  • Edit My Profile
  • View/Edit My Portfolio
AGORACOM News Flash

     

YouTube                      Small-Cap Podcast          iTunes

AGORACOM TV IS NOW ON DEMAND!

AGORACOM TV Is Available Anytime and Anywhere. Now, You Never Have To Miss It If Life Gets Too Busy @ 9:45 AM EST.

Watch Repeats on YouTube, Subscribe To Our RSS Feed On Our Very Own SmallCapPodcast Or Automatically Download OnTo Your iPod Via iTunes.

For Our Web 2.0 Super-Users, You Can Even Pick Up The Show By Following Us On Twitter.

If You Believe As We Do That We Are Entering The Buying Opportunity Of A Lifetime, Don't Miss An Episode Of AGORACOM TV !

 

Patriot Scientific > Message
Generic_profile

Watch the T3 case carefully.... does the Quanta case apply to our situation?

Posted by: knixx99 on June 09, 2008 02:42PM

In response to: Summary of holding by Supre... by devon7878

Hello everyone.....

Let's all take a deep breath and step back for a moment. Investor reaction so far appears to be based on the notion that whatever were the facts of the Quanta vs. LG case apply in a straightforward manner to the MMP portfolio and TPL/PTSC case against all potential infringers.

But stop and think for a moment. If the use of the MMP by Intel was all there was to the infringement case against the J3/J5, why would it have been necessary for TPL to investigate and deconstruct their chips in order to demonstrate infringement by the J3/J5? Why wouldn't the fact that Intel had licensed the MMP (or deconstructing available Intel chips used by the J3/J5) have been sufficient proof?

I submit that, beyond the use of the MMP techniques by Intel/AMD in their chips, there are other ways in which the MMP may be used by other electronic equipment makers that extend beyond the use of the already licensed chips (by Intel, AMD or Fijitsu). We know already that computer chips are only a subset of the chips actually used in the electronics world, and that Intel's dominance of the computer chip area does not extend to chips used in other applications.

This means that, although the potential area left for TPL to explore for potential MMP patent infringement may have been substantially narrowed by the SC decision, there remains some potential targets for continuing infringement action. TPLmay simply have to focus on upstream firms who don't use Intel, AMD or other licensed chips (e.g., Fijitsu). Alternatively, the amounts requested from chip makers who haven't yet licensed the MMP will have to go up substantially to make up for the inability to pursue the upstream users.

I suggest that we should all watch closely to see what happens in the T3 case following this SC decision. If my observations above are correct (i.e., the T3 may be infringing the MMP in ways independent of their use of licensed chips), then the case should continue unabated (or be settled without reference to the SC decision).

On the other hand, if I am wrong, then expect the T3 to apply expeditiously to the court for a dismissal of the entire lawsuit since the SC decision would have pre-empted the TPL/PTSC case. The next few weeks will be very telling in this regard.

All IMHO.

--Knixx

Post a Reply

Please login to reply to this message.

President's D.D.
Key business initiatives at Patriot Scientific toward building a “New Patriot” with solid future growth and profitability. read more
Stock Quote