I've made noise about how our team may not be too foregiving IF the Js don't settle, go to court, lose, pay damages for past infringement, and THEN have to approach our team for a license for continued use/design of infringing chips.

What if our team did the anti-drug thing - "just say NO".  They don't HAVE TO license the tech, do they?  It's not like the products of the defendants are the only ones of their type available in the marketplace (i.e., I can't see why Governments would get involved in this business when the products aren't lone and critical to survival).

While the Js could probably acquire replacement chips from other licensees, their chip-making business would die.  And ARM?  Dead in the water.

Pressure?

To balance this little argument with myself....IF this goes to court and we lose in total, we're dead too.

But, in light of the Markman result, what is the likelihood of our losing on all three patents?  As I have suggested before, we only really need to prevail on one.  Why?  See the above.

JMHO,

SGE