``And to add to that sentiment- below is a cut & paste from Roses_NY @ Raging Bull -

1. ARM states its cores are NOT identical to the J3 cores.

2. The fact that a company has an indemnity clause does NOT mean they are not directly liable for infringement, only that they can turn to the indemnifier for redress.

3. An indemnity clause does NOT relieve the J3 defendants of their responsibility to examine prior art to insure that they are not infringing on third party patents.

SGE - Do these concepts hold water with you?``

I have no response on the first item, other than to say ``so what?``.

On number two, I`m not getting the point. Yes, a claim can be made that they are infringing, but they point to the clause and the liability passes to the supplier.

On the third item, totally wrong. Such activity is extremely costly, and is a main reason for insisting on inclusion of the clause, as it inherently relieves them of the burden. Using my flood insurance analogy, that would be like requiring a person to conduct extensive research on the risk of flood, and being able to demonstrate diligence in their research, or their insurance policy is void. Hog wash.

JMHO,

SGE