I've been thinking about how these guys have responded to our rocket docket claims. I see them as essentially ten claims, one for each patent thought to be infringed. They've focused on the one claim (patent), which in the opinion of many here isn't the most provocative (like the Fish clock and the instruction fetch would be). But many have concluded that, due to this focus on one claim, coupled with a mere flat denial and silence re: the others, suggests that they don't "feel" they are infringing on any of the others, but this one is arguable. Now I don't really want to start suggesting I have any knowledge regarding their strategy ('cuz I KNOW nuttin'), or try to be a Monday morning patent attorney (as Ronran has warned against - rightfully), but have thought of how such a thing was handled from my business experience. When we were notified by the USGov't auditors of claims of non-compliance with a contract or Gov't regs (FAR), we would always jump all over the weakest claim and flat deny the others (until they rubbed our noses in the evidence). Standard procedure, direct attention to the most arguable point. This was usually a guise; an effort to throw them off and buy time to counter the non-arguable, more valid claims. With those, we'd try to validate their claims and, once validated, create a believeable and do-able corrective action plan and schedule, including a cooperative effort (with the auditors) to amend our directives and conduct training if necessary. So we'd place their focus on their weakest argument (and be basically silent or "under review" on the others), and while they churmed on that, we'd be preparing our presentations to demonstrate our sincere concern and planned effort to counter the other claims. That's how it worked, and it was a tried and true approach that worked virtually every time. So I've tried to place this approach in the context of the J3/Arm response. All I can get from this excerise is that maybe they're implmenting a similar approach, causing our resources to be directed to the weakest point while we give perhaps less attention to our stronger points, which may make their (percieved) position stronger when the other points arise. But the more important thing I (think I) gain is the thought that their flat denial and basic silence on the other 9 claims/patents is meaningless. Their failure to engage on the other claims may simply be because they have no effective counter, so they've they've put a "change their focus and redirect their resourses" strategy in play. All pure conjecture with little basis. But it's one of those "what would YOU do in this circumstance" things. But remember, what I would have been doing for the last several months if I were in PTSC's circumstance would be to buy, beg, borrow and steal every outstanding share I could, so that tells you how effective that thought process is! LOL FWIW, and I KNOW nuttin'! SGE