One further thought on this, as it relates to current discussion of the 737 patent. As Doni noted, the judge's construction on 774 made no reference to "removable." That's appropriate and is good news for us. Think of Apple, for instance. How many of their products rely on removable flash memory? I don't know of any. We want the 774 patent to cover as many devices as possible, including Apple's.

But the 737 patent does cover removable flash, and specifically a method for validating the memory upon insertion. This is the "if you take the flash out and it doesn't work, it infringes" factor. Some, but not all, infringers violate both 774 and 737, and some only one or the other. Almost all cameras, for instance, violate both, which is why camera manufacturers are settling.

Please note: This is just my take on it all.

Chuck