I`m very late in responding to this post - still catching up. Sorry to all, as you`ll have to go back and look at the post to which I`m responding (had to do with court procedure and NEC`s opposition to our adding chips to the list).

IMO, logic and reasonableness will prevail, for the overall effectiveness of the court. We`re basically adding to our original claim a more detailed/specific list of chips calimed to infringe. The NEC stance is that we`re now saying that the original list was ``representative`` since we apparently didn`t stipulate this in out original claim, and perhaps we made a procedural error in making this submission to the court. But how will the court view their opposition? The first obvious thought is that it`s out of fear - that they know they`re infringing and are trying to limit the damages. But the real issue for the court is ``Do we want to prosecute this case, only to leave an open door to the plaintiff (us) to file a new, nearly identical claim regarding these other chips?``. In the interest of the efficiency of the court, I would think the opposition motion would be denied, and perhaps some action be taken/required of us to resolve the procedural issue.

And if the court allows the NEC to prevail in its m opposition motion? That door would indeed be left open, giving us a possible ``out`` by filing a new claim containing the now contested added chips. An open door we can walk through if we need to.

JMHO, and I KNOW nuttin`!

SGE