Since your brought the subject of FRAND up, perhaps you might want to dig a bit further.
<Serial ATA industry compatibility specifications originate from The Serial ATA International Organization (aka. SATA-IO, serialata.org). The SATA-IO group collaboratively creates, reviews, ratifies, and publishes the interoperability specifications, the test cases, and plug-fests. As with many other industry compatibility standards, the SATA content ownership is transferred to other industry bodies: primarily the INCITS T13 subcommittee ATA, the INCITS T10 subcommittee (SCSI); a subgroup of T10 responsible for Serial Attached SCSI (SAS). The complete specification from SATA-IO.[5] The remainder of this article will try to use the terminology and specifications of SATA-IO.>
IMO, If these folks did their job, the 336 tech would be an acknowledged industry standard and we would not have to sue companies to obtain reasonable license fees.
If you read the USITC claim charts you will run across this statement
<The SATA communication system utilizes embedded timing signals, which indicates the presence of a second clock which is independent of the CPU clock.>
If that statement is true, then it is not just individual companies that are attempting to avoid licensing the 336 tech, but an industry-wide conspiracy to do so.
Opty
