Patriot Scientific

For the past year there has been a recurring sequence of posts such as those of "FLEECED SHEEP" which contain what appears to me to be either misinformation or disinformation. Some of those posts also cite my post of 5 Oct 2010 but suggest that my post supports this mis- or dis-information. I would like to take this opportunity, a year later, to further clarify what I understand about the origins of the MMP.

To begin with there is my post of 5 Oct 2010 which I will include here by linkage so that the text reads now as it did then:

http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/topics/445143-points-about-origins-of-the-mmp/messages/1451062#message

This post was basically corroborated on 2 Nov 2010 in a post by my old friend from the ANS Forth Technical Committee, George Shaw:

http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/topics/445143-points-about-origins-of-the-mmp/?message_id=1463852#message_1463852

I would like to extend this information and address the substance of what FLEECED SHEEP and others appear to have been asserting over the past year.

-----------------

Firstly, it is not exactly true that "Nanotronics and Patriot paid all the costs of creating the patents." Woody Higgins was originally working for Leckrone and so the word "all" is not precisely right. It seems likely George was not in the loop at that time. But it is certainly true that the expenses of filing and nourishing the patents were paid in part by each of the parties, just as the expenses of inventing this fabulously valuable IP in the first place seem to have been borne entirely by Chuck Moore and Russell Fish.

Secondly, the original patents pertained to work which was invented early on and was incorporated in the original ShBoom chip. This chip was made in a prototyping run and Chuck personally used his for some years thereafter. After Fish went to Nanotronics, he and George and I presume others developed a different chip, which might be called Sh-Boom 2, and eventually a third chip was made. That is interesting historically but it is immaterial because...

Thirdly, it is a mistake to presume as some seem to that it is a chip that is patented by the MMP. Those patents are for design ideas. The original ShBoom served as a practical example of employing those ideas, but I do not believe even that was necessary in order to patent the ideas themselves.

Fourthly, the original MMP patents, by which I mean the ones that are being licensed and have thus far yielded over a quarter billion dollars of gross revenue for PTSC and TPL, are based on the ideas conceived by Chuck and Russell as Chuck was designing the original ShBoom prototype.

When Russell took Chuck's schematics to Nanotronics and began work on a second chip design there, he was making a new chip but he was not filing new MMP patents with new IP.

There are a number of patents and/or applications that were filed by George, Russell, et al during the Nanotronics period. One example is called "Floating point exception handling in a risc microprocessor architecture" and may be found at

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=5&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=(%22fish+russell%22.IN.)&OS=in/"fish+russell"&RS=IN/"fish+russell"

This is an example of the work done at Nanotronics. As far as I know none of that work is included in the MMP and none of these patents or applications, reflecting the work which Russell Fish and others did at Nanotronics, has produced a penny of revenue for PTSC or TPL.

I believe it is either misinformation or disinformation to assert that the money that has come to PTSC or to TPL from the MMP has anything to do with inventions created while Russell Fish was at Nanotronics.

Fifth, any assertion that the amount paid to Russell Fish for his share of the MMP patent portfolio was "generous", or that any amount ever offered to Chuck by PTSC was "generous", is either misinformation or disinformation. Based on Leckrone's estimate of 1 billion, or based on current experience of over one quarter billion, the amounts offered were so low as to be insulting and the gains made so far by PTSC and TPL on those amounts are, or would have been, obscene.

I will add that one great mystery to me, personally, has been the question of how it came to pass that Nanotronics and later PTSC seem to have believed they had full ownership of the MMP patents. It is always interesting to learn how intelligent, grown adults can come to believe things that are not true. Was it a deception? Was someone simply not paying attention? Was it incompetent legal advice? Did The Shadow come by and exercise the Power to Cloud Men's Minds? Who knows. I once asked Dan Leckrone about this and he could not enlighten me. Perhaps some day in the fullness of time Gloria Felcyn will write memoirs that could shed some light on this remarkable misapprehension on the part of so many people.

One thing is for certain. Chuck has assured me that after he and Russell Fish parted company and Russell went to Nanotronics, no one ever asked him about his interest in the patents, or about giving them up, or about selling or assigning them until finally PTSC offered Chuck a pittance for his interest. To me this means that at no point in the process did anyone actually try to do the honorable thing and gain full ownership and control by honest means.

------------

As before, the above information consists of understandings I refreshed today by asking Chuck, and I believe the information presented is correct. My apologies in advance if I have gotten anything wrong.

My purpose in writing the above is simply to refute public statements that contend the Chairman of the Board of Directors I serve is anything other than an honorable man who tells the truth and claims nothing that is not his. In the future I would ask that those who pass out this sort of defamatory misinformation, or disinformation as it may be, kindly check their sources before posting. Chuck Moore is not a "public figure" and I believe that it is simply wrong to defame such people publicly, especially in cases such as this one in which it is clear that the majority of your company's past and future income has depended, and will depend, upon successfully exploiting his valuable ideas. If in doubt send me inquiries by PM; I will be happy to answer reasonable questions.