Hi

I have been reading about the new Chuck chips, from the fireside chat last
year. I would like to know more about the business, even contact the
company, has anybody got contact info.

Before I go in, has anybody got information on the new chips, or what has
happened to Ting's venture. I managed to get in contact with him, but he
wouldn't say anything about the production chips talked about years ago,
which were supposed to be produces by an Asian chip company.

Thanks

Wayne.

From:	chuckgg at sanna.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	20 Jan 2005 15:37:05 -0800

John, you need to take a little break from c.l.f. Please!

From:	mark3921 at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	18 Jan 2005 16:31:09 -0800

Hum,,,Itv,Patriot,F21,lawsuits....
I sense another forth chip disaster in the making.

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	20 Jan 2005 11:24:09 -0800

Bernd Paysan wrote:
> jmdrake_98@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The amount of money Chuck may or may not have gotten for the
agreement
> > has nothing to do with whether or not his work was significant.
>
> The fact that Intel has made an agreement with him depends mostly on
the
> amount of money he wanted (one billion? one buck?). Is this so
difficult to
> understand?

Oh put a sock in it Bernd! If Intel came to Chuck and said they wanted

an agreement and he said "Fine, you can have it for free" does that
make
the work insignificant? OF COURSE NOT! To quote you "is this so
difficult for you to understand"? Some people charge a boatload for
their intellectual property and some give it away free. Case in
point MicroSoft made a boatload of money off of MS-DOG while Linux was
given away free. Does that make Linux insignificant? Your argument
has no merit.

Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	19 Jan 2005 08:56:01 -0800

Well I know less about this than you do. I'd never heard of this Fish
guy
before the suit. The Patriot claim seems to be that they're the "sole
owner" of patent 5,809,336 because (according to them) Fish came
up with the clock idea. But I read that patent and it covers more than
just the clock, so even if their claim was declared to be true, I don't

see how they can claim the entire patent. But I don't know anything
about patent law. Perhaps their lawyers think they can "split off"
that part of the patent ex post facto. Anyway it seems to me
they're grabbing at straws.

Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	rickman
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:19:59 -0500

jmdrake_98@yahoo.com wrote:

> Well I know less about this than you do. I'd never heard of this Fish
> guy
> before the suit. The Patriot claim seems to be that they're the "sole
> owner" of patent 5,809,336 because (according to them) Fish came
> up with the clock idea. But I read that patent and it covers more than
> just the clock, so even if their claim was declared to be true, I don't
>
> see how they can claim the entire patent. But I don't know anything
> about patent law. Perhaps their lawyers think they can "split off"
> that part of the patent ex post facto. Anyway it seems to me
> they're grabbing at straws.

Not trying to argue with anyone, I just want to hash out some of the
facts and implications.

I went to Yahoo and the PTSC web site and I see some conflicting
information. Let me review what seem to be the facts.

The USPTO lists patent number 5,809,336, " High performance
microprocessor having variable speed system clock" with the following
info.

Inventors: Moore; Charles H. (Woodside, CA);
Fish, III; Russell H. (Mt. View, CA)

Assignee: Patriot Scientific Corporation (San Diego, CA)

So it appears that at least PTSC has partial claim to the patent. The
PTSC web site lists them as writing to multiple companies in April 2004
about infringement of this patent. From that I would assume that they
had already bought their portion at that point in time.

The news release on Yahoo about the recent discovery by PTSC of the
agreement between Intel, Moore and TPL indicates a date of June 28,
2004. This agreement grants Intel "non-exclusive, irrevocable,
non-terminable, worldwide license" on this patent. The agreement does
not seem to include PTSC.

So how could Intel enter into an agreement with Moore, et. al., but not
PTSC on this patent? The news post does not use terms that would make
me think they were granting any rights they may or may not own. With
PTSC on the patent registration, I would think they would have to be
part of any agreement. No one is disputing the rights of PTSC in owning
Fish's interests in the patent, right?

--

Rick Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave. 301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110 GNU tools for the ARM http://www.gnuarm.com

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	19 Jan 2005 08:50:05 -0800

Duuuuude, here's a BETTER clue. Just because a company's share price
is in the tank doesn't mean they didn't have good technology. If you
think
that Micro$oft and Intel made the most money simply because they always
head the best ideas than you more of a clueless troll than I thought.
And
I never said the "suitbots" would "revitalize the forth community."
I'm saying
they'll likely build more chips that are good for running Forth. Learn
to read!
But, as I already said, I actually hope they LOSE!
Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	19 Jan 2005 12:18:18 -0800

True. But then we haven't actually read the agreement, just Patriot's
synopsis
of it. I'm willing to bet that the agreement only covers Chuck's
interest in the
patent, rather than the entire patent. But Patriot needs 100% patent
owner
participation to go ahead with the suit. So if one owner enters an
agreement
that says "I agree not to sue" that basically a veto. It's not a
matter of Patriot
being "excluded" from the license agreement but rather that they're
being
prevented from suing. An agreement that just covered Chuck's interest
in
the patent would be enough to stop the suit. Look at it this way. If
Patriot
was just mad about being "excluded" they wouldn't need to try to claim
100% ownership to win their case.

Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	20 Jan 2005 08:09:23 -0800

The fact that PSC has made and sold chips in the past leads me to
believe they'll make and sell chips in the future. Could be wrong, but
I think that's a fair assumption. Anyway, like I said, I hope they
lose.

Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	mark3921 at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	19 Jan 2005 08:40:27 -0800

Duuude, here's a clue. The whole Patriot scene is crap.

Let's see...share price 8 cents, 8 employees, less then $200k in sales
a year...auditor says cannot continue....

And you think these suitBots will revitalize the forth community if
they win a lawsuit? Wow!

From:	CaffeineJunkie
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:11:45 +0100

> And all was silent, the night before Christmas?

wayne, that's probably because you're not very specific about which new chip you mean. try these:
http://www.forthfreak.net/misc/25x.html
http://www.forthfreak.net/misc/25x.pdf

From:	Wayne
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:31:19 +1000

Thanks for that, actually I found and downloaded those a day or two ago
off a google link ;) I don't even know if that is one of the designs that
he is presently working on, and there is no emulator/simulator. So it is
vital to talk to them to get the realistic picture, as I would need more
info.

Which chip, specifically, any and all chips from Async and Ting, otherwise
I will have to resort to researching a Forth FPGA design, or just use a
Arm chip (which consumes more power than Chuck's and of no benefit to the
Forth community). If I can't get into contact with them, I suppose the
next question will be, which are the best programmable silicon chips out
there, for low power consumption, or for speed, or for avaialble busses
and memory areas (for a multi processor version) and choose the best fit.
I don't think any of them will have low power consumption, or speed,
anywhere near that of the x18 or 25.

Thanks

Wayne.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:11:45 +0100, CaffeineJunkie <(account will expire)

> wrote:

>> And all was silent, the night before Christmas?
>
> wayne, that's probably because you're not very specific about which new
> chip you mean. try these:
> http://www.forthfreak.net/misc/25x.html
> http://www.forthfreak.net/misc/25x.pdf

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

From:	rickman
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:30:37 -0500

Wayne wrote:
> Thanks for that, actually I found and downloaded those a day or two ago
> off a google link ;) I don't even know if that is one of the designs
> that he is presently working on, and there is no emulator/simulator.
> So it is vital to talk to them to get the realistic picture, as I would
> need more info.
>
> Which chip, specifically, any and all chips from Async and Ting,
> otherwise I will have to resort to researching a Forth FPGA design, or
> just use a Arm chip (which consumes more power than Chuck's and of no
> benefit to the Forth community). If I can't get into contact with
> them, I suppose the next question will be, which are the best
> programmable silicon chips out there, for low power consumption, or for
> speed, or for avaialble busses and memory areas (for a multi processor
> version) and choose the best fit. I don't think any of them will have
> low power consumption, or speed, anywhere near that of the x18 or 25.
>
> Thanks
>
> Wayne.
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:11:45 +0100, CaffeineJunkie <(account will
> expire) > wrote:
>
>>> And all was silent, the night before Christmas?
>>
>>
>> wayne, that's probably because you're not very specific about which
>> new chip you mean. try these:
>> http://www.forthfreak.net/misc/25x.html
>> http://www.forthfreak.net/misc/25x.pdf

Sounds like you need to talk directly to Chuck. You said you found the
above pages. One has an email link for inquiries about the chips, did
you try that? chipchuck@mindspring.com

Reading the 25x.html page, it looks to me like Chuck does not like to
include memory on his chips. I would expect that at the speeds he is
running the CPU, it would be memory bound. With one CPU running at 2400
MIPs I think that would require about 500 MWPS memory access assuming a
32 bit interface. I don't know of any SRAMs that can support that.
With 25 CPUs running at once, how can he keep them all fed with
instructions, much less data? I guess the array chip is targeted to
video or other apps with a lower IO rate, but high internal processing
rate.

Another thing I am surprised about, is the way he uses a mirrored pinout
to mount on the opposite side of the PCB. Multi-chip packaging is
very common these days and would improve the memory IO speeds. With a
stacked chip arrangement, this could be a single package, but would
require a common pinout rather than a mirrored one.

--

Rick Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave. 301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110 GNU tools for the ARM http://www.gnuarm.com

From:	Wayne
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:56:30 +1000

Thanks.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:30:37 -0500, rickman
wrote:

> Sounds like you need to talk directly to Chuck. You said you found the
> above pages. One has an email link for inquiries about the chips, did
> you try that? chipchuck@mindspring.com
>
> Reading the 25x.html page, it looks to me like Chuck does not like to
> include memory on his chips. I would expect that at the speeds he is
> running the CPU, it would be memory bound. With one CPU running at 2400
> MIPs I think that would require about 500 MWPS memory access assuming a
> 32 bit interface. I don't know of any SRAMs that can support that. With
> 25 CPUs running at once, how can he keep them all fed with instructions,
> much less data? I guess the array chip is targeted to video or other
> apps with a lower IO rate, but high internal processing rate.

Yes, the guy from the Enumera company, they were dealing with a couple of
years ago, has a lot of interest in video apps.

He actually restricted a lot of the processing to on processor memory in
this chip. Each processor has a small amount of ram to execute from. As
noted before, this suits some apps more than most. I am not sure if any
processor is a master controll processor that executes out of the SRAM
(halve to re-read) which is best!

>
> Another thing I am surprised about, is the way he uses a mirrored pinout
> to mount on the opposite side of the PCB. Multi-chip packaging is
> very common these days and would improve the memory IO speeds. With a
> stacked chip arrangement, this could be a single package, but would
> require a common pinout rather than a mirrored one.

Yes I have raised this in years past, but maybe they don't have access to
that packaging technique.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

From:	Elizabeth D. Rather
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:42:30 -0800

"Wayne" wrote in message
news:opskk18myikhyzh5@w...
>
> Hi
>
> I have been reading about the new Chuck chips, from the fireside chat last
> year. I would like to know more about the business, even contact the
> company, has anybody got contact info.
>
> Before I go in, has anybody got information on the new chips, or what has
> happened to Ting's venture. I managed to get in contact with him, but he
> wouldn't say anything about the production chips talked about years ago,
> which were supposed to be produces by an Asian chip company.

Jeff Fox is the best person to provide that information, because he's
directly involved with the project and in a better position than I to know
what information is or is not proprietary.

The Asynch chips are being made for a particular project, and I do not
believe there are any plans to make them generally available any time soon,
although theoretically that could change in the future.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310-491-3356
5155 W. Rosecrans Ave. #1018 Fax: +1 310-978-9454
Hawthorne, CA 90250
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

From:	Wayne
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:12:25 +1000

Thanks Elisabeth. Well Jeff hasn't replied here, and I was told by
somebody else, that enquired, that he wasn't telling them anything. I
understand from the fireside chat that they are actively looking for
people with applications to sell the chips to. I have an application and
want to review the technology, and if suitable, use their
emulator/simulator programs to develop a software model of the product
from which I can seek funding to take the product to market. Of interest,
I want it to be programmable in colorforth (with a few extra custom API's)
for software development, as a side benefit then, it will be one way for
the community to own and program one.

Thanks

Wayne.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:42:30 -0800, Elizabeth D. Rather
wrote:

> "Wayne" wrote in message
> news:opskk18myikhyzh5@w...
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have been reading about the new Chuck chips, from the fireside chat
>> last
>> year. I would like to know more about the business, even contact the
>> company, has anybody got contact info.
>>
>> Before I go in, has anybody got information on the new chips, or what
>> has
>> happened to Ting's venture. I managed to get in contact with him, but
>> he
>> wouldn't say anything about the production chips talked about years ago,
>> which were supposed to be produces by an Asian chip company.
>
> Jeff Fox is the best person to provide that information, because he's
> directly involved with the project and in a better position than I to
> know
> what information is or is not proprietary.
>
> The Asynch chips are being made for a particular project, and I do not
> believe there are any plans to make them generally available any time
> soon,
> although theoretically that could change in the future.
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
>
>

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	19 Jan 2005 09:51:55 -0800

You wish troll.

Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	mark3921 at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	18 Jan 2005 21:36:43 -0800

And you think it's a win for the forth community if Patriot wins?
No one wants Patriot crap! Thats why they need to litigate.

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	19 Jan 2005 11:37:31 -0800

I recall reading (don't have the link handy) that Patriot's suit can't
go foward
unless ALL parties with interest in the patent agree to sue. They
tried to get
Chuck to go along with it, but he wouldn't. So the only way they can
sue is
if they can prove they have exclusive rights to the patent.
Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	rickman
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:43:31 -0500

jmdrake_98@yahoo.com wrote:

> I recall reading (don't have the link handy) that Patriot's suit can't
> go foward
> unless ALL parties with interest in the patent agree to sue. They
> tried to get
> Chuck to go along with it, but he wouldn't. So the only way they can
> sue is
> if they can prove they have exclusive rights to the patent.
> Regards,

Yes, I remember that as well. But this is the other side of the coin
from the issue of PTSC being excluded from a license agreement with
Intel. Just because they are not the sole owners does not mean they are
not still owners...

--

Rick Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave. 301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110 GNU tools for the ARM http://www.gnuarm.com

From:	Brad Eckert
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	21 Jan 2005 15:12:05 -0800

Albert van der Horst wrote:
>
> Read up on Marx. Linux is invaluable. But it is knowledge.
> The market price of knowledge is (like any commodity) is the
> monetary amount to reproduce it. Because .10 cents is the
> price to reproduce a CD with Linux (or Windows for that
> matter), that is the market price.
>

I think that's the way Bill looks at it. Some kind of class struggle
thing. For some reason having an economic model that Microsoft can't
dominate bothers him. It seems like many of Microsoft's enemies know
this and are jumping on the Open Software bandwagon. A weaker MS is
less likely to swallow them up.

Programmers do what they do for love or money, and in Linux's case it's
generally not the money. There's some anti-MS bias at play too, but
they are playing by the same rules as MS. May the more competent
programmers win.

--
Brad

From:	mark3921 at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	19 Jan 2005 09:12:47 -0800

This clueless troll sure got your panties in a bunch

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	19 Jan 2005 06:59:54 -0800

I suppose I should ignore you as just a troll because you clearly
haven't got a
clue as to what you're talking about. The Ignite chip (which Patriot
ripped off
from Chuck more) isn't "crap". It runs Forth and Java code pretty
good. But
there hasn't been this overwhelming market for Java hardware, or Forth
hardware for that matter. If Patriot wins (and I hope they don't) it
will completely
revitalize there company and they'll be able to make more stack
oriented
chips. That's good for Forth. If they lose then Chuck will stand to
gain from
the agreement of Intel.

Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	19 Jan 2005 14:16:27 -0800

No. I don't own shares or work that. Why would you ask such a silly
question?
Would I say that I wanted Patriot to LOSE if I worked for them?
Sheesh!

One more time for those who have a hard time understanding simple
English. My point to the troll Mark is that the work done by Chuck et
al clearly ISN'T insignificant if Intel has entered into an agreement
with Chuck over one of his patents. And while I hope Patriot LOSES
the case, in the off chance that they did win at least it would likely
mean more of their chips (yes real chips, not just "intellectual
property")
would be available for sale. But I'd rather Chuck win, and I'd rather
see his new stuff come out rather than more of the bastardized versions
of his ShBoom chips.

Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	Albert van der Horst
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	20 Jan 2005 10:33:44 GMT

In article <1106172987.550304.50110@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
>No. I don't own shares or work that. Why would you ask such a silly
>question?
>Would I say that I wanted Patriot to LOSE if I worked for them?

Could be. You are tech guy.

>Sheesh!

Sorry.

>One more time for those who have a hard time understanding simple
>English. My point to the troll Mark is that the work done by Chuck et
>al clearly ISN'T insignificant if Intel has entered into an agreement
>with Chuck over one of his patents. And while I hope Patriot LOSES
>the case, in the off chance that they did win at least it would likely
>mean more of their chips (yes real chips, not just "intellectual
>property")

Why do you think that? What I think is that if they extort
a billion from Intel that they would hire more lawyers
and buy more "intellectual property" until such time that
the board has collected enough money through share price
manipulation that all retire to spend their lives in
Hawaii discotheces.

This is an Enron/SCO type of business. Or that's how I sniff
it out.

>
>Regards,
>
>John M. Drake
>

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst,Oranjestr 8,3511 RA UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
One man-hour to invent,
One man-week to implement,
One lawyer-year to patent.

From:	Bernd Paysan
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:10:14 +0100

jmdrake_98@yahoo.com wrote:

> My point to the troll Mark is that the work done by Chuck et
> al clearly ISN'T insignificant if Intel has entered into an agreement
> with Chuck over one of his patents.

You can't know, since you don't know how much Chuck got for the agreement.
If the agreement is sufficiently cheaper than going through an invalidity
lawsuit, why bother?

My opinion on this patent is:

a) the unregulated ring oscillator Chuck describes is used in no other
microprocessor (they all use PLLs, which are synchronized to reference
clocks, and switch the multiplier).

b) The actual use of an unregulated ring oscillator predates the patent by
decades. Most of the work in this field is to regulate the ring oscillator.

The idea is clever, though. Having an unregulated ring oscillator that
matches the logic speed gives you a number of the same features the
complicated power management of an Pentium M or Athlon64 can do. But it
does so in a much simpler way, at the cost that the clock is no longer
related to a stable, external clock.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	18 Jan 2005 20:39:47 -0800

mark3...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hum,,,Itv,Patriot,F21,lawsuits....
> I sense another forth chip disaster in the making.

And I sense another clueless person trying to discuss
something he knows nothing about. For the record
Patriot is referencing a recent patent agreement
between Chuck more and Intel (yes THAT Intel) in
their lawsuit. So no matter who wins the lawsuit,
a Forth chip maker will come out ahead. So much
for your "sense".

Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	rickman
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:26:28 -0500

jmdrake_98@yahoo.com wrote:

> mark3...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Hum,,,Itv,Patriot,F21,lawsuits....
>>I sense another forth chip disaster in the making.
>
>
> And I sense another clueless person trying to discuss
> something he knows nothing about. For the record
> Patriot is referencing a recent patent agreement
> between Chuck more and Intel (yes THAT Intel) in
> their lawsuit. So no matter who wins the lawsuit,
> a Forth chip maker will come out ahead. So much
> for your "sense".

I remember reading the press releases on this suit and I had the
understanding that Chuck Moore was involved because he had declined to
enter the issue and Patriot was trying to have his interest in the
patent declared null. I don't remember reading anything about Chuck and
Intel having a "patent agreement". I believe Intel is merely trying to
swat both Patriot and Chuck if he gets involved.

--

Rick Collins

rick.collins@XYarius.com

Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave. 301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110 GNU tools for the ARM http://www.gnuarm.com

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	19 Jan 2005 06:54:34 -0800

>From Patriot Scientific's website:

SAN DIEGO, Dec. 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Patriot Scientific
Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC - News) has learned of a license
agreement dated June 28, 2004 between Intel Corporation and Charles H.
Moore (Moore), TPL Micro Ltd. (TPL Micro) and Technology Properties
Ltd. (TPL)(Moore, TPL Micro Ltd. and TPL are collectively the
licensors). This agreement provides Intel with, among other things, a
non-exclusive, irrevocable, non-terminable, worldwide license to make,
have made, use, license, distribute and sell Intel products that
practice the U.S. 5,809,336 Patent.

This agreement between Intel and, collectively, the licensors
demonstrates the validity of the U.S. Patent 5,809,336, "High
Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock." PTSC
strongly maintains, and believes the evidence to be submitted at trial,
will demonstrate that it is the sole owner of this patent, which has
enormous commercial value to the company. "Intel and other companies
who execute licensing agreements with Moore, TPL Micro Ltd. and TPL are
assuming significant risk for their respective companies in licensing
technology for which Moore, TPL Micro Ltd and TPL have no legitimate
ownership if in litigation Fish is determined to have been the sole
inventor," stated Jeff Wallin PTSC's CEO.

PTSC has been involved over some time in infringement litigations over
some parts of its patent portfolio and also in litigation over
inventorship and ownership of those patents.

One of the patents, U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336, "High Performance
Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock," (the '336 Patent)
is listed in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), along with several
other patents, as having been co-invented by Russell H. Fish, III and
Charles H. Moore. Some years ago, Fish's interests in these patents
were transferred to the Fish Family Trust, then to Nanotronics
Corporation, then to Patriot, which now owns 100% of Fish's interests
in these patents, including the '336 Patent. Discovery in the
inventorship litigation strongly suggests that Fish was the sole
inventor of the '336 Patent. If so, he was then its sole owner, and
Patriot is now its sole owner.

PTSC has had suspicions that Intel was behind an offer made through TPL
last month to purchase PTSC's patent portfolio. Learning of this
license agreement lends creditability to PTSC's concern that Intel,
through the licensors, is anxious to secure the technology at a price
far less than its value to PTSC's shareholders.

Intel has demonstrated a strong belief in the validity of the patents
by entering into the license agreement, and the licensors recognize
that they must secure ownership of PTSC's interests or the license
agreement may be set aside, and the pending litigation between PTSC and
Intel would proceed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (case numbers C 03-5787 SBA and C
04-0439 SBA).

About Patriot Scientific

Patriot Scientific is an intellectual property company, developing and
marketing innovative and proprietary semiconductor technologies into
the fast- growing handheld wireless and smart card markets. The
company's portfolio of patents encompasses what is believed to be
fundamental microprocessor technology and includes additional patents
pending to protect its technology and architecture.

For Patriot Scientific information, contact Lowell Giffhorn at (858)
674-5018. Detailed information about Patriot Scientific can be found on
the website http://www.ptsc.com. Copies of Patriot Scientific press
releases, current price quotes, stock charts and other valuable
information for investors may be found on the websites
http://www.hawkassociates.com and http://www.hawkmicrocaps.com.

An investment profile on Patriot Scientific may be found at
http://www.hawkassociates.com/patriot/profile.htm.

For investor relations information, contact Frank Hawkins or Julie
Marshall, Hawk Associates, at (305) 852-2383, e-mail:
info@hawkassociates.com.

Safe Harbor statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time
involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with
the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products
markets, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance
risks, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors
detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	Wayne
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:24:11 +1000

I hope they aren't claiming too much? Wasn't Fish the guy with the
business idea to take over Apollo workstations (I think) before HP (I
think) bought them out and got Chuck to design the chip? Not speaking
from nay fundamental first hand knowledge here, but querying past
conjecture. I thought Chuck was the principal architect of the chip
technology (or the sole designer)? Should it really matter that for
whatever reason (business/partnership/contract ownership agreement etc)
that Fish was allowed on the patent as co-inventor with Moore, surely that
is not how you determine ownership but by the business contracts designed
(or stated verbally as verbal agreements have weight in law, but harder to
prove) to determine ownership, and ownership in cessation of agreement and
death? If somebody depended solely on the validity of inventorship
statement on patents, couldn't they land up claiming all sorts of
ownership they never actually owned, only to have it drastically defeated
in the end (if the other party can afford it)? Even if documentation has
ceased (by whatever means), in a civil case wouldn't it come down to the
evidence of likely hood of said agreements existing in the practice of
such a relationship and the distinct lack of distinct explicit
documentation to the contrary?

Of course I don't know anything about this case, apart from what I have
read here, so if there is any gag order, "group list maintainer" please
remove my statements above.

On 19 Jan 2005 06:54:34 -0800, wrote:

>> From Patriot Scientific's website:
>
> SAN DIEGO, Dec. 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Patriot Scientific
> Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC - News) has learned of a license
> agreement dated June 28, 2004 between Intel Corporation and Charles H.
> Moore (Moore), TPL Micro Ltd. (TPL Micro) and Technology Properties
> Ltd. (TPL)(Moore, TPL Micro Ltd. and TPL are collectively the
> licensors). This agreement provides Intel with, among other things, a
> non-exclusive, irrevocable, non-terminable, worldwide license to make,
> have made, use, license, distribute and sell Intel products that
> practice the U.S. 5,809,336 Patent.
>
> This agreement between Intel and, collectively, the licensors
> demonstrates the validity of the U.S. Patent 5,809,336, "High
> Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock." PTSC
> strongly maintains, and believes the evidence to be submitted at trial,
> will demonstrate that it is the sole owner of this patent, which has
> enormous commercial value to the company. "Intel and other companies
> who execute licensing agreements with Moore, TPL Micro Ltd. and TPL are
> assuming significant risk for their respective companies in licensing
> technology for which Moore, TPL Micro Ltd and TPL have no legitimate
> ownership if in litigation Fish is determined to have been the sole
> inventor," stated Jeff Wallin PTSC's CEO.
>
> PTSC has been involved over some time in infringement litigations over
> some parts of its patent portfolio and also in litigation over
> inventorship and ownership of those patents.
>
> One of the patents, U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336, "High Performance
> Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock," (the '336 Patent)
> is listed in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), along with several
> other patents, as having been co-invented by Russell H. Fish, III and
> Charles H. Moore. Some years ago, Fish's interests in these patents
> were transferred to the Fish Family Trust, then to Nanotronics
> Corporation, then to Patriot, which now owns 100% of Fish's interests
> in these patents, including the '336 Patent. Discovery in the
> inventorship litigation strongly suggests that Fish was the sole
> inventor of the '336 Patent. If so, he was then its sole owner, and
> Patriot is now its sole owner.
>
> PTSC has had suspicions that Intel was behind an offer made through TPL
> last month to purchase PTSC's patent portfolio. Learning of this
> license agreement lends creditability to PTSC's concern that Intel,
> through the licensors, is anxious to secure the technology at a price
> far less than its value to PTSC's shareholders.
>
> Intel has demonstrated a strong belief in the validity of the patents
> by entering into the license agreement, and the licensors recognize
> that they must secure ownership of PTSC's interests or the license
> agreement may be set aside, and the pending litigation between PTSC and
> Intel would proceed in the United States District Court for the
> Northern District of California (case numbers C 03-5787 SBA and C
> 04-0439 SBA).
>
> About Patriot Scientific
>
> Patriot Scientific is an intellectual property company, developing and
> marketing innovative and proprietary semiconductor technologies into
> the fast- growing handheld wireless and smart card markets. The
> company's portfolio of patents encompasses what is believed to be
> fundamental microprocessor technology and includes additional patents
> pending to protect its technology and architecture.
>
> For Patriot Scientific information, contact Lowell Giffhorn at (858)
> 674-5018. Detailed information about Patriot Scientific can be found on
> the website http://www.ptsc.com. Copies of Patriot Scientific press
> releases, current price quotes, stock charts and other valuable
> information for investors may be found on the websites
> http://www.hawkassociates.com and http://www.hawkmicrocaps.com.
>
> An investment profile on Patriot Scientific may be found at
> http://www.hawkassociates.com/patriot/profile.htm.
>
> For investor relations information, contact Frank Hawkins or Julie
> Marshall, Hawk Associates, at (305) 852-2383, e-mail:
> info@hawkassociates.com.
>
> Safe Harbor statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
> Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time
> involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with
> the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products
> markets, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance
> risks, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors
> detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
> Regards,
>
> John M. Drake
>

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

From:	Albert van der Horst
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	19 Jan 2005 20:09:39 GMT

In article <1106146474.613444.238700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
>>From Patriot Scientific's website:
>
>i

>
>About Patriot Scientific
>
>Patriot Scientific is an intellectual property company, developing and

as in litigation^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hintellectual property

>marketing innovative and proprietary semiconductor technologies into
>the fast- growing handheld wireless and smart card markets. The
>company's portfolio of patents encompasses what is believed to be
>fundamental microprocessor technology and includes additional patents
>pending to protect its technology and architecture.

These guys have been sitting on those patents until a big
player like Intel comes up.
Sometimes I think it is good that the US has still the death penalty.

If someone believes a 8 cent price for shares is insignificant,
then at least they should think about a turnover of $200,000

>
>John M. Drake

Do you own shares? Or work there?

>

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst,Oranjestr 8,3511 RA UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
One man-hour to invent,
One man-week to implement,
One lawyer-year to patent.

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	20 Jan 2005 11:29:46 -0800

And how much do you have to pay to download and use Linux? I guess
Linux
is worthless.

Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	Jerry Avins
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:41:23 -0500

jmdrake_98@yahoo.com wrote:

> And how much do you have to pay to download and use Linux? I guess
> Linux is worthless.
>
> Regards,
>
> John M. Drake

You know that a lot depends on circumstance. One could argue that soup
kitchens and overseas relies are worthless too, but we won't.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

From:	Albert van der Horst
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	20 Jan 2005 23:33:32 GMT

In article <1106249386.422542.141760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
>And how much do you have to pay to download and use Linux? I guess
>Linux
>is worthless.

Read up on Marx. Linux is invaluable. But it is knowledge.
The market price of knowledge is (like any commodity) is the
monetary amount to reproduce it. Because .10 cents is the
price to reproduce a CD with Linux (or Windows for that
matter), that is the market price.

Market price and worth are totally different things.
The classical example that Marx gives is air.
You don't pay for air, because it need not be reproduced (yet).
But you die instantly for lack of air, so it has a great
intrinsic (not market) value to you.

The dogmatic liberalist 1) are trying to makes us forget that intrinsic
value (air, happiness) is much more important than market value.

And there is a corrolary to this. The price of Windows has to go
down to 10 cents. That is what the free market dictates.
Anything different is extortion and market manipulation.
A price of $300 can only be maintained under some sort of
dictatorship.

1) In my book a liberal is a bad, capitalistic right winger.
A liberalist is an extremist from this camp, and it is even
more of a pejorative.
This terminology may confuse US denizens.

>
>Regards,
>
>John M. Drake
>

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst,Oranjestr 8,3511 RA UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
One man-hour to invent,
One man-week to implement,
One lawyer-year to patent.

From:	jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	20 Jan 2005 08:06:51 -0800

Bernd Paysan wrote:
> jmdrake_98@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > My point to the troll Mark is that the work done by Chuck et
> > al clearly ISN'T insignificant if Intel has entered into an
agreement
> > with Chuck over one of his patents.
>
> You can't know, since you don't know how much Chuck got for the
agreement.
> If the agreement is sufficiently cheaper than going through an
invalidity
> lawsuit, why bother?

The amount of money Chuck may or may not have gotten for the agreement
has nothing to do with whether or not his work was significant.
Regards,

John M. Drake

From:	Jerry Avins
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:24:54 -0500

jmdrake_98@yahoo.com wrote:

> Bernd Paysan wrote:
>
>>jmdrake_98@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My point to the troll Mark is that the work done by Chuck et
>>>al clearly ISN'T insignificant if Intel has entered into an
>
> agreement
>
>>>with Chuck over one of his patents.
>>
>>You can't know, since you don't know how much Chuck got for the
>
> agreement.
>
>>If the agreement is sufficiently cheaper than going through an
>
> invalidity
>
>>lawsuit, why bother?
>
>
> The amount of money Chuck may or may not have gotten for the agreement
> has nothing to do with whether or not his work was significant.
> Regards,
>
> John M. Drake

From one point of view, yes. On the other hand, Milton Caniff, the
artist/author of the comic strip "Terry And The Pirates", wrote that one
of the most important lessons from his most influential teacher is that
a piece of art is worth exactly what the highest bidder will pay for it.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

From:	Bernd Paysan
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:46:09 +0100

jmdrake_98@yahoo.com wrote:
> The amount of money Chuck may or may not have gotten for the agreement
> has nothing to do with whether or not his work was significant.

The fact that Intel has made an agreement with him depends mostly on the
amount of money he wanted (one billion? one buck?). Is this so difficult to
understand? Intel customers are sued by Patriot, so Intel is trying to do
something against it. Getting into an agreement with Chuck is obviously one
way. It might be used by Patriot as argument that this work is
"significant", but this argument doesn't matter to Intel, since they've got
their agreement, and are out of troubles. Unless Patriot manages to cut
Chuck out of the patent ownership.

It might be even the other way round. Intel is a bully, too. Chuck makes
chips, and at the moment even chips that should sell. I'm pretty sure,
whereever he designs chips, he violates 10 or 100 Intel patents, just
because they have such an awful lot. Now, normally, they wouldn't use these
patents, but in case someone is fighting them, they clearly would. So an
agreement between Intel and Chuck could just be that they won't sue each
other, and that's it. It still has nothing to say about the significance of
Chuck's work to Intel, or whether Intel processors violate the patent at
all.

The Patriot lawsuit is a SCO-like scam. This is simply a company going
downhill, and with their last hand on a rotten drain pipe, they now search
for an emergency exit. The US legal system seems to give an opportunity to
such scams.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

From:	Wayne
Subject:	Re: Async Array Devices and other new forth chips?
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:58:49 +1000

And all was silent, the night before Christmas?

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:08:36 +1000, Wayne wrote:

>
> Hi
>
> I have been reading about the new Chuck chips, from the fireside chat
> last year. I would like to know more about the business, even contact
> the company, has anybody got contact info.
>
> Before I go in, has anybody got information on the new chips, or what
> has happened to Ting's venture. I managed to get in contact with him,
> but he wouldn't say anything about the production chips talked about
> years ago, which were supposed to be produces by an Asian chip company.
>
> Thanks
>
> Wayne.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/