Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
That sly dog!
Well, if were talking natural disasters, lets go for the motherload, a planet killing asteriod. What that means is go long in ptsc with everything you have b.c we ain't got long.
Elk, I hope your building in coastal regions. Becareful with landlocked areas.
Just my O.
Biajj, PHENOMANAL POST on raging bull. I went from queazy to euphoria.
"Dued .. LOL.. You're disingenuous in your dispassion, neutrality and advocacy, intellectually dishonest in your analysis, severely uninformed in your and your sources reconstruction of the historical record, fanciful in your revisionism, and sorely ill-advised legally; not to mention being wholly inadequate (and mostly inaccurate) in your own legal understandings and conclusory abilities.
Keep writing, they say fiction sells best; I assume it pays well too..." (Written by Biajj)
thats a thing of beauty
I think all veterans of ptsc speculation can probably determine at what pt a newly devouted follower will crack, such as myself.
I see the process as:
1) Introduction - best described as irrational exuberance
2) Primary Education - learning company basics...
3) Denial - denying company's difficulties
4) Secondary Education - the value of learning
5) Discussion - basic free forum logic
6) Uncertainty - uncertainty
7) Higher Education - assimilating "all" information, company correspondence
8) Higher Logic - higher free forum logic
9) Cracking - going bonkers...
atleast my experience...
i agree with everything except possibly the intel being 1st part, or maybe they were b.c they got to moore/lecky during the fish/ptsc litigation when ptsc shoulda got to moore/lecky...but if ptsc contacted moore/lecky during their litigation with fish, moore/lecky couldve decided to license 1st and ptsc wouldve shot themselves in the foot and created more of an uphill battle...besides, ptsc had to wait for the appeals and wasnt 100% sure of ownership...also, the licensing agreement prob woulda been dated much earlier...
please forget what u all just read...
ptsc claims to have offered both fish and moore the same deal (more or less) after winning against fish...maybe lecky was left in the cold or lecky wanted more and declined...then he struck a deal with intel and either way he comes out a winner...i really dont like this lecky character...but that would be brillant...that is amazing and u got to hand it to the guy...(according to agreement between ptsc and fish that defense has b.c exchange of documents...fish can earn up to 200 million...i dont know how the defense was allowed to state that info b.c it is protected and considering that the defense claims protected info all the time...i wonder if defense breeched some agreement...hmmm)
gosh, i hate this logic tree ... i have thoroughly confused myself...i could go on but no more...
Your idea was excellent...mine are conspiracy theories...
Sedley, I got another conspiracy theory for you...lol
Does Donald Bernier have to file to sell stock now? Has he resigned or only stepped down as chairman?
Could he have insider knowledge about the higgins date and be strategically selling his stock, or is there some SEC law that doesn't permit ex-board members from trading for an allotted period of time?
if u dont want to reply i understand..but if u want to engage in conspiracy theories..im game...haha
Lars, I did mention in my post that Federal judges ain't no spring chickens and the law will guide them, but we all know the law permits corrections of patents, and now that i have been thinking more and more about Higgins, who wrote up the frickin claims (frickin = humor), Higgins has extremely powerful testimony...in any other case where one claims against the other without seriously corroborating claims, its over.
I read some of Fogel's cases and I came to the conclusion that these guys follow the law, but there are always circumstances that push the decision one way or the other...there was only one case I read judged by Fogel that was cut and dry (french vs yahoo) , the rest were complicated...one claimed software patent infringement, etc...
I think the feds dont want to be messing with patents after the fact, only if there is overwhelming evidence, and higgins imo provides for that...
I think settlement before trial...tpl cant afford declaratory judgement...and i bet the tpl - intel licensing agreement was contingent upon intel atleast paying the legal fees and at the most providing full settlement funding...
Outstanding, Biajj. They didn't mention Beatie who is the most qualified "general" attorney. He went to Princeton and then to Columbia Law, acting as a senior attorney of B&O. I am confident he is capable of handling A-C privilege, etc.
The semiconductor/DRAM specialist at Townsend is certainly a force. I would assume the sever and stay motion re: 336 by PTSC was disputed by that specialist. He is arguing for similarities between General(749, 890) and Clock(336, 614?).
I am assuming the "the specialist" will aim for victory based on a claim technicality. That, IMO, is the most dangerous. I could see Fogel say, "The law is the law and that, albeit, small technicality argued by "the specialist" is enough to rule in favor of the defense."
But Higgins wrote the separate patents, did he not? He is the ultimate authority on what was intended providing there wasn't any correction by the PTO, and that there isn't "unique" commonalities between both sets of patents. I don't see the defense gaining much ground if my assumptions are correct.
no commonalities is a big assumption...i hope higgins has exact notes based on every ShBoom divisional patent he wrote and can categorically deny contrary arguments. (I think i am thinking way to much about this case
I think there are two possible outcomes if we go to trial
1) the Jusge says, "PTSC, u waited too damn long and too bad."
2) he says, "Moore and Leckrone, shame on you and this is what happens when you dont follow the law."
without higgins its over and with higgins i think there is a good to very good shot. not in the bag...
Sedley, re: your previous post. I really want to believe you, what you say fits perfectly with what I have been observing. But I have no frickin clue!
I follow the price pattern and as the ask price gets to 0.077 - 0.08, selling begins until 0.076. It will start with some large block sales of between 50k - 100k, which are divided into 10ks and 25ks trades adding to the original block. (I apologize for stating the obvious) Once 0.076 is hit small sell ticks come accross like 273 shares to test the waters...trying to push the price to 0.075 so that anyone who has auto-buys (or regular trader) at 0.075 will have their orders executed. Then the seller trades tit for tat against the buyer until a buyer moves 100k in and the ask goes back up to 0.077 or something ... it is very strange and I could be absolutely wrong and going mad...lol It has followed the same pattern everyday since we stabilized with no news. I think it is the same pattern pre - '336 validity announcement and your idea makes good sense for the selling pressure.
Let me know what you think. I think I am beginning to invent things...
Biajj, you are too kind and thanks for the support. I really do appreciate it. I only hope we are all correct in the end.
Thanks
Moxa, thanks for the support. PTSC still could lose, but I honestly think that Drued Works is arguing for the enjoyment of a debate. I think he is using only logic and no fact. I think he is inventing some points if you read closely.
Anyway, we shall see
A funny arguement filed today. B&O asked for 10 extra pages in their response to defense's motion to bar Higgins, DQ counsel, etc., and the defense said no. So B&O had to ask for permission. I bet Fogel is like, What the F? Just givem the xtra 10 pages, why force everyone to do more work? Unless settlement Just kidding
Can anyone offer some theories as to why we see soo many sellers in this stock? Are others getting better bid/ask pricing than I am?
I welcome opinions.
Laches and Estoppel
Laches and Estoppel are equitable defenses, which means when the defense believes that the law is going in the wrong direction the judge should make the "right" decision and rule against the law. It is sort of like a "common sense" defense, but I don't think it works in this case.
Laches is a basic time limit, like a statute of limitations, but when no statute is enforceable. IMO laches does nothing b.c PTSC was involved in litigation for 7 years to determine who had rights to '336. This was before the actual patent was granted in 1998. Without ownership determined, how can a party file against others? You can't and for that reason I think Laches is thrown out.
I think Estoppel is a better defense. Fish signed his sole rights away when filing the original ShBoom patent (I just realized that Fish and Moore only signed as co-inventors in the original ShBoom patent filing in 1989 and during the secondary filing in 93?, Higgins just used the original "signatures" to protect the IP. I had previously thought that Fish and Moore had signed again, or something, which I now doubt.) and the defense will argue that the following patents bear his oath and signature. But this will probably get throwin out because there is allegedly sufficient documentation to show that Moore never tried to determine proper inventorship of the divided ShBoom patents.
Again, I could be wrong.
I would like someone to bring up a legit defense for Moore. What can they say to have this ruled in their favor. I feel the need for pro and con debates. Trying to keep it honest.
I read a study done on patent litigation from 1995 until present (I think).
http://www.bu.edu/law/news/ip/papers/PatentLitigation.pdf
70% of all patent litigation is settled. That number includes cases that were terminated, etc. If you subtract the terminated, miscellaneous cases that I dont think apply to our case, the % increases to atleast 83%.
The average duration of a case among patent cases which were settled or probably settled was 370 days, while the average patent case that terminated through a trial, summary or directed verdict was 701 days.
The question is will they go to trial? Or will there be a settlement?
And again I would like a reason as to why Intel and friends would wait and allow PTSC become sole owners?
California State Law (Evidence Code)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/evid/950-962.html
Go to bottom for Section 962 and it is spelled out in black and white.
962. Where two or more clients have retained or consulted a lawyer upon a matter of common interest, none of them, nor the successor in interest of any of them, may claim a privilege under this article as to a communication made in the course of that relationship when such communication is offered in a civil proceeding between one of such clients (or his successor in interest) and another of such clients (or his successor in interest).
I read this a couple weeks ago and I have decided to post it. This is included among many other codes and cases in B&O's arguement. Can it get anymore clear? That is why I think a settlement will come from this. I understand why many people believe in a long, drawn out conclusion, but I don't think Intel, Sony, Samsung, Fujitsu, NEC and Toshiba (I think Toshiba) will let this go further post-Higgins.
Tell me what you think?
Disclaimer: I could be wrong!
I would like some feed back on the following:
What would stop Intel, if Higgins is allowed to testify, from acquiring PTSC and continuing the inventorship litigation against Moore? If Intel wins sole inventorship, they could, theoretically, stop AMD from using the Fish Clock. (I am assuming AMD uses infringable tech)
I think this technology is too big for a six person company like PTSC to own.
What do you all think?
I wish we had a super techy and seasoned IP litigant to help us out with this =)
Moxa, my heart skipped a beat also when I first read the order to seal documents. The good news is that all of those documents, as you subsequently posted, were provided by Higgins for PTSC. Attorney - Client privilege supposedly bars the exhibits until a ruling is given to allow or bar Higgins' testimony.
I have read the arguments by both sides and I think PTSC will prevail because B&O's (Patriot's attorneys) precedents are more tangible to this case than the defense's. But the defense will fight this tooth and nail. And I am basically holding my breath until that ruling.
It all comes down to Higgins and I have phoned Lowell Giffhorn of PTSC several times and have yet to speak with him. When I get him I will ask the following:
- Do you anticipate to be operational atleast until the inventorship litigation is finalized?
- Do you still maintain the strengh of your case against Moore and friends?
- Can you confirm the ruling date on Higgins' Testimony as Feb 4 and will you make an announcement via PRnewswire?
- When will the board elect a new chairperson?
that's it
Elkman, if you read the court documents, Intel is briefed about once a month. Intel's lawyers must have consulted management and have contigency plans in place if things don't look good. Why would Intel management even take the chance of allowing the Holy Grail of IP to fall into the wrong hands? Intel's management would be complete fools to allow PTSC to become sole owner. They have a chance to end this in the short term and I think if/when Woody Higgins (who is currently barred from testifying due to Attornery-Client privelege) will be allowed to testify, it will not look good for Moore and friends unless there is another defense. On the other hand I could be totally wrong.
Anticipated ruling date for Woody Higgins (IMO if Higgins can't testify, get outta dodge!):
February 4, 2005 - Latest date for Woody Higgins ruling.
Proposed dates by the defence:
March 1, 2005 - Deadline to exchange opening expert reports
March 4, 2005 - Deadline to serve and file opening briefs
March 15, 2005 - Deadline to exchange rebuttal expert reports
March 18, 2005 - Deadline to serve and file opposition briefs
March 25, 2005 - Deadline to serve and file reply briefs
March 29, 2005 - Deadline to complete expert depositions
April 1, 2005 - Hearing date
April 13, 2005 - Defendants request that the claims and counterclaims be determined in a single trial before this court on or after April 13, 2005 (Trial Date)
I think sometime in April there will be a trial, or delay tactics forever.
Monkey Dog, if you want to read court documents goto post # 239.
I don't think Intel will allow PTSC to be named sole owner. They will have to pay substantially more, even if they choose to settle with Intel in the next round. PTSC's value goes sky high after receiving the rights to the patent and Intel IMO can not let that happen.
I think Intel has 1st dibs on PTSC. If AMD wanted to get into this fight, they would have to wait and see if PTSC would be sole owner because AMD doesn't have anyone on the inside monitoring the case. AMD couldn't try and acquire PTSC, or join into an agreement, b.c they can't be certain PTSC is sole owner.
I think Intel and TPL are joined at the hip. If Intel, Fujitsu and friends are confident that TPL has no defense, Intel will settle or acquire. It will be substantially cheaper than to allow PTSC to become sole owner. If PTSC becomes sole owner they r entitled to 6 years of Intel revenue (and probably other infringers) involving the fish clock. That could easily be tens of billions if no prior license existed.
I do not believe the '336 patent has been licensed to anyone prior to the "nuissance" licensing in June, 04. Which means whoever is sole owner gets it all b.c according to the court documents... there is no competition or rival for the Fish Clock...
I don't think it is a coincidence that all asian companies are listed in Patriot's lawsuit. Unless previously explained, asian companies tend to settle than go to trial.
I agree with Moxa that Intel can't afford lose control of this thing.
I will also say that once Higgins is allowed to testify (ruling between Feb 2 and 5, I forget), there isn't much TPL and friends can do to stop a favorable ruling. I believe there is too much corroborated evidence and Moore doesn't have anything in his defense. I am hoping for a substantial rise in the stock price after Higgins will be allowed to testify, 13 cents to 50 cents price.
I don't believe Intel can afford to allow Patriot to become sole owner of '336 because Intel will have to pay that much more in their settlement. If Moore and friends go to trial and Patriot feels they can win, they may want a decision if they feel there case is as strong as it appears. Instead of a ?200 - 500 million? settlement, PTSC, as sole owner, would be entitled to 6 years of revenue prior to their lawsuit with Intel, which would be billions from Intel, billions. I don't think Intel can afford to let this lawsuit go to trial. I think Intel is joined at the hip with TPL and friends.
In another note Patriot lawyers are trying to have Moore's stated evidence handed over for scrutiny. Patriot's lawyers are confident that Moore has 0 documentation. Moore said he would look for the supposed floppy disks with his clock diagrams that do not specifically relate to the 336 clock, but to other chips. Then Moore reversed himself and said he wouldn't hand over the documentation, etc.
As the court documents read, Moore, after consulting with his attorneys, said that there wasn't one patent out of all the ShBoom patents that had an original inventor and that they both had equal participation. I find that hard to believe considering they rarely worked together. And I suppose the judge won't either.
Any comments welcomed.
Monkey, I think you fight the fight you can win. Intel is the largest and you fight them first. Once you win that the others fall into place.
Sedley, thanks for the info.
Does any legal precedent exist where a co-inventor was subtracted from a patent after more than 5 - 10 years after the original filing?
That is the multi-million dollar question.
Infinity, I do not know enough about the licenses of this patent and whether or not there was a pervasive license granted to all microprocessor manufacturers (over 110 mhz). If all the facts are known, I would agree with you, why not license to their competitor? But I think it is more complicated than that.
I think it is a simple case of the industry infringing without obtaining a licenses, which happens all the time b.c these large companies can settle afterwards.
To All:
Sedley, do you have a link that provides information re: Fish, PTSC "agreement"?
As I understand it Nanotronics bought Fish's right to '336, among others. PTSC bought Nanotronics in 1995. The patent was issued under the watch of PTSC. So the parts I am foggy on are:
- Who licesenced '336 to Intel and friends and for approx how much? Or has Intel infringed, obtaining a license agreement from TPL only 6 months ago in June, 2004?
- If it is found that Moore acted in bad faith and is determined to be a misjoinder, isn't there a possibility that the patent will become invalid? Not invalid in the eyes of industry, invalid at the USPTO. And if there is no applicable value in the industry there is 0 money.
- Laches and Estoppel have been potent defenses in patent litigation in the past. I would greatly appreciate someone telling me why Laches and Estoppel will not work for TPL, Moore and Lechrone.
I think this case will make law. If anyone has a case regarding a misjoinder of inventors and one acting in bad faith (i.e., Moore) that was subsequently subtracted from the patent post ruling, please post it.
Someone needs to play devil's advocate. Whether it is effective or not, I do not know.
Why did PTSC wait for approximately 5 years to bring a lawsuit? And can anyone explain how PTSC will defeat an affirmative defense of Laches and Estoppel?
The reason PTSC hasn't been paid is that co-inventorship doesn't require one inventor to share any royalties he/she seeks, unless there was a prior agreement and there was no prior agreement between Moore and Fish.
More documents filed on December 30th.
Moxa, that makes sense. Because there is another document granting a motion to bar Higgins' testimony by the defense. Thanks for clarifying that.
This is why I would prefer others to read for themselves. I can easily make a mistake. But after reading both arguments by the defense and plaintiff, it is my opinion that the plaintiff's argument is much stronger. But please read for yourself.
The civil action # is C 04 0618 JF (HRL)
It is posting 118 when you view the historical documents.
The ruling reads as follows:
The court having considered Plaintiff's Motion To Permit Higgins' Testimony, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Willis E. Higgins, Esq. is permitted to testify about preparing and filing the patent application at issue in this case and related matters without objections based on the attorney client privelege.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Honorable Jeremy Fogel
Judge of US District Court
Good pt 2b...dont want to get into trouble with the law...
Hello,
I would like to post the case files I have, I don't know how to do it and I don't want to pay money to do so.
If anyone knows how I could post all the files I have without paying a cent, I would be willing to do that.
Trust me, if you just sign up for PACER you will have access to all the documents. I suggest starting from the most recent dates. Please see my post #239.
Here is where the case stands as of December 20th, 2004.
The focus of the defense was on the following points:
1) Estoppel - I interpret this to mean that once Fish allowed Higgins (the patent lawyer who prosecuted ShBoom) to file the applications, which were subsequently accepted by the uspto, Fish stated co-inventorship of all the related patents. This means that once he filed and the patents were accepted as being
co-invented, Fish is not permitted to reverse himself.
I believe PTSC can easily argue this by showing the documents from Fish and Higgins, and a reported phone call between Fish and Moore when Moore allegedly admited to not having contributed to 336. And patents are allowed to be corrected regardless of estoppel.
2) Laches - This relates directly to the passage of time prior to stated complaints. The defense believes that too much time has passed for PTSC to have contested the inventorship of 336.
I believe PTSC can easily argue this by stating that 336 was not granted until 1998 and that they realized the value recently, etc. I doubt the defense will be able to use Laches.
3) Claims - The defense states, correctly, that all they must do is proove that Moore contributed significantly to one claim in 336.
There are only 10 claims (10 claims is very small for a patent) and according to Fish and Higgins, Fish solely conceived and documented 336 a day or two before all the patents were submitted as one, the ShBoom patent. I doubt that Moore contributed to 336 b/c he has been documented as saying that "Fish conceived 336."
4) Attorney/Client Priveledge - The defense claimed that Higgins should not be allowed to testify b.c of the A/C priveledge between Moore and Higgins during the filing of the ShBoom patent.
This motion has already been denied by Judge Jeremy Vogel. When there are two opposing parties that shared the same council, A/C priveledge is automatically waived.
I welcome any criticism of my interpretation of the court documents I have read. I believe the more viewpoints one has, the easier it is to predict future events.
If you want to read the court documents, goto my past entry entitled, To View Court Documents Goto:.
Moxa, all I can say is register to use PACER. You can read all the court documents and you will know where Patriot and TPL, Moore and Lechrone stand. I think that Patriot has a slam dunk case, but you never know. I could regurgitate all the court info and tell you the "specific" points of contention, but it is best to read for yourself. Also, TPL and friends may win on some technicality, that is why I suggest registering. You pay 20 USD for almost all the case files and you can sleep at nite. ;)
I will take that 64k! :) But there is a lot of great information. There is one exhibit that documents the verbal exchange between Beatie and Cook, lawyers for PTSC and Lechrone, respectively. Cook, Moore and Lechrone traveled to Maine to be present for Woody Higgins deposition. And Cook kept citing Attorney client priviledge and didn't allow the deposition to continure and what follows is the exchange between the lawyers.
MR. BEATIE: Did you arm yourself with any assistance from cases, statutes, or rules before you came here to make an assertion of this privilege you have described?
MR. COOK: That's my business. Did you?
MR. BEATIE: Well, in the event that -- we're gonna make it my business because in the event that you did, you have a severe complaint against your parents for shackling you with severe genetic defects.
MR. COOK: I'm sure you're familiar with those kind of defects.
MR. BEATIE: I am indeed. I deal with people like you all the time. My partner's favorite phrase is "the liars are winning."
If you log into the PACER website and view documents, there is a lot of good information regarding the case and a few entertaining parts.
To view court documents go to:
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov
IT IS WORTH IT! That letter I posted is the tip of the iceberg.
Choose "Register for PACER" (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). You will have to register using a credit card. It will allow you to view court documents for 7 cents per page and there is no registration fee.
After signing up and receiving your login and password via email, go back to http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov and select "Links to Pacer Websites". Make sure you choose "DISTRICT" courts (sends you to another site) and then choose "California Northern District Court - ECF" (ECF is important). Choose "Login Here", you will be prompted for your login and password. After entering into PACER choose "query" from the upper blue heading. You will be sent to the query screen and type in "Patriot Scientific" as the name of the case. Click "Patriot Scientific", which brings you to another screen where you should choose "history/documents" (something like that). Then another meaningless screen where you press search/go/enter. Now you should have the history of the case up until dec 20, which was the last entry.
If you follow my directions you will save yourself some time and money, and gain some excellent information. It is easy to accumulate viewing charges so read well.
2b, you could be right. I was looking at the court documents and on December 20th, Woody Higgins, the lawyer who filed the patents, will be allowed to testify which is a set-back for the defense. The defense argued that Higgins shouldn't be allowed to testify because of client-council privelege with Moore, but the judge ruled in favor of PTSC.
I also have a copy of the letter written to Woody Higgins by Russell Fish dated September 12, 1992. Fish writes about how the patent office has split the patents and he suggests that "Chuck" and himself should prosecute the patents separately. Fish also says that Moore's patents are really not all that important. I think they will settle or be acquired.
Also, is it a coincident that Higgins is allowed to testify on the December 20th and Donald Bernier resigns on the same day due to "time constraints'? Are you serious? Let me know what you think.
The letter is as follows:
To: Woody Higgins
cc: Helmut
From: Russell Fish
Date: September 12, 1992
Subject: ShBoom Patents
GENERAL
The patent office has split our one ShBoom patent claim into the following:
1. Triple bus multiplexing.
2. Multiple instruction fetch.
3. DMA coprocessor.
4. Automatic sensing of number of memory chips.
5. Fish Clock.
6. Merged stack/register architecture.
7. Automatic polynomial generation.
8. "ShBop" monolithic CPU & DRAM.
9. Method for prefetching
10. Stack caching.
One possible ramification of ten separate patents is that each of these ten ideas had a single inventor. To the best of my recollection 1, 2, 5, 6, & 8 were mine, and 3,4,7,9, & 10 were Chuck's. #10 did have significant input from me. If you ask him, I believe you will get the same answer on all 10.
In my estimation, 1,2,5,6,& 8 are also the most useful and valuable potential patents.
The prototype chip used Moore's patent #3 for the coprocessor. The new chip uses my coprocessor/DMA design which takes a different approach and achieves superior results.
Moore #4 is a neat idea, but not essential.
Moore #7 was not implemented in the prototype nor in the current chip.
Moore #9 has been modified in the current chip and the patent is probably not essential to ShBoom.
Moore #10 was not implemented in the prototype and the current chip uses a different technique jointly invented by Shaw, McClurg, and myself.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNATURE
ShBoom gets its speed from #2 and #6. Multiple instruction fetch gets around the Von Neumann bottleneck. Merged register/stack architecture allows single cycle math and logic operations without a pipeline.
You cannot build ShBoom or anything like it without these two patents. These two patents are complimentary and increase the speed of ShBoom by from two to three over a similar computer which doesn’t use these techniques.
#1 is a cost reduction and power reduction idea. By sharing pins, wires, and drivers three ways. power consumption is reduced by two thirds, chip area is reduced by 50%, and package cost is reduced by 70%.
Without #1 you can make a part which runs as fast as ShBoom. but it will cost three to four times as much and burn three times the power.
#5 and #8 work together and are the key patents necessary to build a fast cheap merged CPU/DRAM. The Fish Clock enables performance optimization which is only possible when memory and CPU reside on the same piece of silicon. Neither of these is used in the current ShBoom.
PRIORITY
#2, multiple instruction fetch, is the key patent. I suggest that we prosecute it first. From a competitive standpoint it is a SPARC killer.
#6 is important but less likely to be copied since it goes against the prevailing wisdom of computer architects. Very few computer architects (outside of Burroughs/Unysis) understand the implications of an arithmetic stack. No microprocessor architects have given it a second thought. I would prosecute it next.
#1 is important for building a cheap ShBoom, but it is only significant if you have #2 and #6. And if you have # 2 and #6 you probably don't need #1. #1 is potentially important when combined with a memory architecture I designed for alliance (but still own the rights to). I would do #1 next.
#5 and # 8 are only significant if we ever decide to build or license a CPU/DRAM which uses the techniques. I suggest we prosecute these last.
THE MOORE PATENTS
When we were defining the original ShBoom architecture, Moore was focused on designing a theoretical machine. I was focused on making and selling damn fast, dirt cheap chips. For this reason, my ideas are probably the more commercially valuable.
All of the Moore patents are either not used in the in the current chip (#3, #4, #7, &10), are a mathematical curiosity (#7), have been superceded (#3 & #10), or can be easily designed out if necessary (#9).
In the interest of economy, we might even leave it to Chuck to prosecute his own patents. He also might accept and even be happier with this arrangement.