Re: New Competitor (Not rated) 26-Aug-06 01:09 pm How about Arm being pulled into the TPL/PTSC lawsuit brought against Toshiba, NEC, & Matsushita (Panasonic & JVC)? Any comments about the following??? yahoo won`t allow me to post all of it but here`s a portion. Any thoughts pro or con welcomed

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

ARM Ltd. and ARM, Inc. (collectively, “ARM”) respectfully submit this motion and supporting brief in support of ARM’s Motion to Intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 as a party-defendant in this action brought by Technology Properties Limited, Inc. (“TPL”). On July 18, TPL served Infringement Contentions accusing multiple ARM processor cores (“ARM Products”) contained within at least four Toshiba chips of infringing United States Patent No. 5,784,584 (“the ‘584 Patent”). On August 14, 2006, TPL filed a motion to supplement its Infringement Contentions and accused ARM Products contained within at least 9 Toshiba, NEC, and MEI chips of infringing the ‘584 patent.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, ARM respectfully requests that the Court grant ARM’s Motion to Intervene and (1) allow ARM to intervene as of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); or (2) in the alternative, grant ARM permissive intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

24(b).

Re: New Competitor (Not rated) 27-Aug-06 07:05 am ningtom, I think you need to help us out by telling us where you found this text. Then we can give better-informed opinions.

Superficially, it seems from your text that ARM have submitted an amicus brief in support of the companies being sued by PTSC/TPL, and that in retaliation TPL has now claimed that certain ARMed chips infringe one of their patents. ARM are pressing for their views to be heard in the case, though they are not directly involved.

The relevance might be that ARM can show that the innovation claimed in the patent was obvious at the time, or that the patent claim was preceded by someone using a similar technique. In those situations, the patent would normally be invalidated through ``prior art`` provisions.

I suspect that ARM`s involvement must be severely prejudicial to PTSC/TPL, who would not otherwise have attempted to claim infringement. Why would ARM intervene in someone else`s fight? Perhaps to uphold the good name of the SIP industry, and to ensure that it is ARM, not PTSC, that receives the bulk of the license fees and royalties.

I don`t think this is anything to worry about at present, but I would appreciate a source.

Dr Z.

Re: New Competitor (1 Rating) 27-Aug-06 09:49 am The full text and document can be found on Pacer (subscription reqd). IMO This suit is causing Arm to step in (or to be dragged in?) because they have indemnified their customers/clients (Matsushita, Toshiba, NEC?) from claims from such a suit. Arm likely won`t be receiving royalties here. They are intervening so as to defend their customers from taking the heat and to protect their turf.

Re: New Competitor (Not rated) 28-Aug-06 09:41 am <>

I think this is extremely unlikely, otherwise PTSC/TPL would have targetted ARM as a primary infringer. The fact that they have only claimed infringement following ARM`s amicus filing strongly suggests that they had no intention previously of suing ARM.

<>

Nonsense. They receive royalties from every chip sold that includes an ARM core, including those sold by these clients.

<>

That is pretty consistent with my view. The question is, how and why have they chosen to intervene? My guess is that they can show prior art through material that is not available to the clients.

Of course, if they were able to show that the relevant PTSC patent infringed one of their own, earlier patents, they would then have strong grounds for nailing PTSC/TPL directly.

Dr Z.

<>

I have had a quick look at the 584 patent, and I would not be surprised to find ARM arguing that it must be invalidated due to prior art specifically in ARM`s Thumb IS extensions.

Contrary to PTSC`s claims in their 10-Q, this application was filed on June 7, 1995, rather than 1989. Around that time, 1995, ARM was already launching the ARM7TDMI core which was the first to use Thumb instructions.

Don`t forget, these patents have NEVER been tested through litigation, though God knows PTSC have been through plenty of legal wrangles about ownership. My guess is that this one, at least, will crumble easily based on ARM`s filings.

It is in ARM`s interests to see this patent declared invalid simply to protect their own patents. Meanwhile, PTSC is still embroiled in yet another case against another of the original ``inventors`` on the applications. There is also the one against their former attorneys, and a former executive.

Meanwhile, the guy who was doing their R&D has left, iirc, so, like MIPS, there is not much else in the pipeline.

Please keep us posted on developments.

Dr Z.

Re: New Competitor (Not rated) 28-Aug-06 10:33 am <>

Which of course could be highly profitable, considering PTSC`s cashflow in recent quarters.

I wonder if the ARM imbroglio might explain why PTSC have been so reluctant to announce their results for the quarter and year ended 31 May?

Their Legal Proceedings and Other Litigation sections are always worth reading for pure entertainment value.

Dr Z.

Re: New Competitor (Not rated) 29-Aug-06 05:05 am I have looked at a fuller version of the text you supplied, and it is clear that some indemnity provision has indeed been invoked, though it is not any sort of compensation as such. Rather, one or two of the defendants in PTSC`s consolidated case have invoked a provision for ARM to provide assistance in the litigation.

ARM`s interests are potentially different to, and severable from, those of the original defendants, so ARM have requested a role in the litigation.

The PTSC enthusiasts are getting far too excited over a development that is likely to see PTSC`s case start to crumble. The single patent under which TPL have now (!) claimed infringement by ARM was only filed in 1995, and at that point ARM had a strong history of innovation, and products in the market. If, as I suspect, ARM can show clear evidence that the 584 patent should be invalidated on the basis of prior art, then they can do some serious damage to the case against the other defendants.

No wonder PTSC have gone so quiet. They are obviously wondering what they have got themselves into. The obvious move now would be for PTSC to settle quietly with ARM, and drop the 584 complaint against the original defendants. That might weaken the case overall, but better now than being humiliated at trial.

Dr Z.

Re: New Competitor (Not rated) 29-Aug-06 07:39 am `584 patent is a division of U.S. application Ser. No. 07/389,334, filed Aug. 3, 1989, now U.S. Pat No. 5,440,749

Z redux (1 Rating) 29-Aug-06 07:49 am you just can not help yourself

I commend you on paragraph one

and then read on

to find you say the patent was filed AFTER ARM in 1995ish

and then a poster shows the lawsuit happy company has the patent since 1989

I await your next post on how ARM will make more money and more money on this and how it is good for ARM

I ask again - has this company come after MIPS - some of whose work dates as far back as God - per Z on the MIPS board - its all ancient -

And

who has started to pay royalties to this lawsuit happy company? and is it in the millions a year or less?

thanks

Re: Z redux (Not rated) 29-Aug-06 07:57 am Patriot

It will be interesting to see fy 2006 revenue

per yahoo - the total rev for fy 2005 was 3 mill

not a joke but not much of an ant hill

seems coexistence very easy

those who want ARM (or MIPS or PPC or Tensilica or whatever) and need to - pay Patriot as well

Anyone see FY 2006 revenue yet?

Also seems Patriot spends a bunch to get the 3 million and must owe some one one hell of a bunch of money as interest expense is about 95% of revenues alone - not healthy for a company

Re: New Competitor (1 Rating) 29-Aug-06 09:41 am << `584 patent is a division of U.S. application Ser. No. 07/389,334, filed Aug. 3, 1989, now U.S. Pat No. 5,440,749>>

The application claims the application that became the 749 patent as a parent, but in this case that seems of little significance. It is potentially possible for the 749 patent to be valid and the 584 patent invalid.

The more I see, the more certain I become that PTSC has made a claim too far by invoking the 584 patent against the original defendants. No doubt they will now try to separate out a different case agaisnt ARM, and drop the 584 claims against the others. PTSC run a huge risk that the 584 patent will be invalidated, and take down their entire case.

Dr Z.

Re: New Competitor (Not rated) 29-Aug-06 09:58 am Z

I trust you the same as propaganda from Patriot

but for the record - Patriot appears to say all is 1980s ish - from first yahoo news story in the headlines area

``````Patriot Scientific and The TPL Group are co-owners of the MMP Portfolio, which Alliacense(TM), a TPL Group enterprise, exclusively manages.

The MMP Portfolio patents, filed in the 1980s, cover techniques that have become essential to consumer and commercial digital systems ranging from DVD players, cell phones and portable music players, to communications infrastructure, medical equipment and automobiles.

One or the other - infringement or not - Patriot is arguing its first ince 1980s preceeds 1995 or are you going to try and spin that too?

It does appear that the end users simply pay both

Well said (1 Rating) 29-Aug-06 11:40 pm ````One or the other - infringement or not - Patriot is arguing its first ince 1980s preceeds 1995 or are you going to try and spin that too?````

WELL SAID>>

By the way it was the defendants who wanted the case to be heard in Cali,not Patriot. It was a huge blow to the defendants that its in TEXAS, check out the property laws there, they shot patent infringers!especially from Japan and the UK. lol

Also they are poised to release massive earnings this next 1/4 .

Reason for not going after ARM, well as Patriot CEO -has stated ``is Going after industry leaders first`` ARM isnt even close (still a well managed company ).

You tell me, why the following have signed, what they have no legal team? what they dont know the industry? get real!

HP

Intel

AMD

Fujitsu

Casio

Sony

Main points I have found about Patriot , has made me NOT UNDER ESTIMATE them

Large insider buying

2 Dividends this year already

Technology Authority Jim Turley Joins Board of Patriot Scientific (check him out)

The company is buying back a Minimum of 10MIL in shares.

I just sick an tired of false hope and missleading ``yes sayer``, something beter has always come along to make me more money. even though a company is well managed, I just hope ARM DOES NOT screw this one up..IMHO cheers all!

Re: Well said (Not rated) 30-Aug-06 09:47 am <>

ROTFLMAO.

I guess you haven`t really checked Turley out very carefully, have you? What a tosser.

Dr Z.

Re: Well said (Not rated) 30-Aug-06 12:05 pm <>

The original cases were in various jurisdictions, and were consolidated into the California case, which Patriot had dismissed. Subsequently, TPL brought the broader case in Texas.

<>

And it is a colossal blow to PTSC that they now have a new intervenor-defendant capable of dismantling their case. The best part is that ARM is far more of a Texas company than PTSC/TPL.

<< check out the property laws there, they shot patent infringers!especially from Japan and the UK. lol>>

I bet they`re not that keen on Californian carpet-baggers, either.

<>

Rrrrright. Just as soon as they can get a handle on this whole accounting business....

<>

ARM is by far the leading SIP provider in the world. Patriot/TPL have been running scared, as well they might.

<>

It is money to make TPL go away, nothing more.

Dr Z.

Re: Well said (Not rated) 31-Aug-06 02:26 am The best part is that ARM is far more of a Texas company than PTSC/TPL.

Z

Your fantasy world is so much fun to wath

ARM is over the pond and British - and trust me -as much as we love Britain - it is FOREIGN - and our courts are not unbiased - right or wrong

Z you said it (Not rated) 31-Aug-06 02:28 am re those who have signed

Z says

It is money to make TPL go away, nothing more.

hhmm

why would ARM not follow their lead and with an iron clad 40 year+ agreement - pay a few bucks to these assholes to shut them up vs fight and fight and risk everything? Seems some very large companies have decided to pay - right or wrong and get on with life

ARM posturing (Not rated) 31-Aug-06 09:15 am Could cost ARM a $##&%*load if they dont win, Patriot only needs one win, check out the stats on Patent infringement in US , Patriot has a 38:1 chance of winning in court (courts favor Patent holders and plaintifs) , ``AMD`` is the largest chip manufacture in the World , ``Sony`` who is know in the WORLD for fighting EVER action ``Tooth and Nail`` were reluctant , then signed, they get it.``RIMS law suite was for a BIL$, Patriot is scaleing up and has a ``WAR CHEST`` estimated to be over $50 Million (US$) ``That`s alot of Lawyers`` ``make a cheep deal now`` IMHO!!..Have a great day!

Re: ARM prevailing (Not rated) 31-Aug-06 09:43 am <>

And it could completely destroy Patriot and TPL if common sense prevails.

<< Patriot only needs one win,>>

That is just silly. They need to win at the Markman hearing, then they need to show that each of their three patents at issue should not be invalidated, then they need to demonstrate infringement of each.

In fact, the case against ARM is based on only one alleged infringement, and TPL/PTSC have studiously avoided suing ARM until after the current case began. Why do you think that is?

TPL have a terribly weak case against ARM, regardless of the merits or lack of them to the case against the original defendants. What keep TPL awake at nights now must be the prospect of ARM blowing their case of out of the water completely, and destroying any prospect they might have had against the original defendants.

<< check out the stats on Patent infringement in US ,>>

More importantly, check out how many times PTSC/TPL have won at trial. It has never happened, since they run away before trial.

And check out how many people ARM employ in Austin. I think you might be surprised.

Dr Z.

Re: ARM posturing (Not rated) 1-Sep-06 10:03 am ARM would be wise to pay them off with chump change now