December 15, 1999 -- "According to Intel, this delivers the best of both worlds: low power in battery mode, near-desktop performance when plugged in. AMD plans to deliver its own variable-speed technology, known as Gemini, in 1H00" -- http://www.mdronline.com/publications/mpw/issues/mpw029.html

"A high performance, low cost microprocessor system having a variable speed system clock is disclosed herein"... -- U.S. Patent 5,809,336. Proprietary owner -- Patriot Scientific -- http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=11&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=5,809,336&OS=5,809,336&RS=5,809,336... May I remind you that Intel, AMD nor any other company using this essential method of invention owns the Patent.
The definition of a clock in terms of microprocessors -- [The number of pulses emitted from a computer's clock in one second; it determines the rate at which logical or arithmetic gating is performed in a synchronous computer]
"Two Integer Arithmetic Logic Units simultaneously take two sequential instructions of up to 32 bits each from the Instruction Decode Unit" -- .Phil. Storr, on the Pentium chip, last updated 26th December 1998 -- http://members.iweb.net.au/~pstorr/pcbook/book1/pentium.htm

Tony Smith -- The Register -- 'Will it get them? Maybe, but we doubt it will get that far. After much toing and froing, both sides will, we suspect, agree to an out-of-court settlement centering on a deal that will give each firm access to the other's intellectual property. Certainly, that's how many of these kinds of cases are resolved. We will watch the fight's progress with interest. ®" -- http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/51/35514.html

A little information about the legal council representing the San Diego company on a contingency basis.
Russel H. "Cap" Beatie graduated from Princeton University and Columbia Law School, has been a trial lawyer in New York City for more than three decades, and is the author of several articles and books, including Road to Manassas (Cooper Square, 1961), and The Army of the Potomac, Vol. One: Birth of Command, September 1860 - September 1861 (Da Capo, 2002). His interest in the Civil War first began at a young age when he read Douglas Southall Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command. A Kansas native and former lieutenant in the field artillery and infantry, Cap has lived in the New York City area most of his life. He has completed the second volume of his Army of the Potomac series, and is currently writing the third installment. Beatie qoute on PTSC -- "It seems to me the market loves their product, they just don't want to pay for it." Beatie said the Patriot case is similar to patent litigation over bar coding technology filed by the estate for the late inventor Jerome Lemelson. Lemelson never actually developed a commercial bar code system, but he filed and amended a series of patents for the technology over decades. Lemelson then filed patent infringement lawsuits against retailers, computer makers and other industries that use "machine vision" technology. Lawyers in the case have said some 1,000 companies signed licensing agreements and paid Lemelson more than $1.5 billion. "What he did is a model for anybody who has a situation like this," Beatie said. "He did a lot of careful thinking and a lot of trial and error. We are familiar with his cases and would look to following his successes and avoiding his errors."

IMO - I believe Mr. Beatie has a strategic plan of attack by suing the 5 Japanese companies first rather than going directly after Intel, he has successfully provoked Intel to file declaratory judgment. In doing so this accomplishes at least three positive goals for the advancement of the case. 1. When Intel files suit, it gets heard much sooner. 2. Obviously there is no way of predicting what decision will be handed down at any juncture of litigation, however in regard to Intels attempt to stop the collective suits against the big five, I believe it is very very likely that the Court will rule in favor of allowing the cases to be heard based on the merit of the claims. When this happens, it will give the claims a higher degree of credibility as the focus turns away from Intel and back to the original five defendants, who have a track record of settling early rather than going through lengthy court battles. 3. In the event that one or all Japanese companies settle and/or are found guilty of infringement, then Intel and the rest of the industry will be at a clear disadvantage as a precedent of validity will have been set.

The several hundred million dollars mentioned in Patriots PR's does not include Intel. Intel was the first to use variable speed clocking and all others followed. Does anyone find it just a little strange that Intel did not patent it? Just because everyone is doing something wrong does not make it right. In no way can I nor anyone else predict the outcome of these lawsuits. IMO - in accessing the risk verses reward ratio; what we basically have here is a penny stock company with a market cap under $20M who recently was awarded full and outright ownership of a patent that appears to be potentially worth billions of dollars who is vigorously setting out to defend. This is exactly what I look for in my aggressive investment criteria. I agree with the Register in that there will be a settlement, but not for swapping IP "assuming the best outcome" -- PTSC gets every penny they ask for. A more realistic outcome would be that those who settle early will have an incentive of gaining a much more favorable deal, probably in the neighborhood of $50 million plus per defendant with market rates on licensing and royalties for current and future sales. Intel on the other hand may drag it out to the eleventh hour, but it should be noted that the amount PTSC is seeking from Intel in damages has not been disclosed as of yet. If the Intel/Patriot trial goes the full duration, in the event of a willful infringement ruling, then whatever the that amount is, it will be triple.