Re Early Session:How about sticking to your promise of not...

Re Early Session:

How about sticking to your promise of not engaging further with me.

You shut nobody down. You just linked to some totally irrelevant academic paper. You followed up with a totally bizarre Appeal to Authority (a logical fallacy) because you claim to be a lawyer. You could practice divorce law in Smallville Kansas for all we know.

The average lawyer has absolutely zero expertise in patent law (apart from a few classes at law school). You most definitely have zero expertise in neuromorphic architecture. So you claims about the BRN patents being extremely valuable is just totally unsubstantiated nonsense.

You obviously aren't aware that the BRN patents are actually based on academic work published five years earlier by Russian-American mathematician Eugene M Izikivich PhD. His SNN work was considered to be of so little commercial value that Peter van der Made was the first person to patent an SNN device in 2008. The almost negligible remaining research in the area is by neuroscientists (eg Simon Thorpe from BRN), Because SNN does nothing useful virtually all commercial research in the area ended a decade ago. It is now just a few big corporations and universities doing government funded pure research. Virtually all the SNN patents are actually blocking patents designed to prevent corporations controlling research. SNN is now essentially nothing more than an academic curiosity. Nobody - except BRN shareholders seem to think it has an real commercial potential.

That's the reality. Some generalist academic paper about patents with absolutely zero direct relevance to SNN is not going to change the facts.