OK - so I vaguely skipped through the patent looking for claims - mostly it's a description of some guys possibly novel media processor architecture, remember t

OK - so I vaguely skipped through the patent looking for claims - mostly it's a description of some guys possibly novel media processor architecture, remember the description is not the patent, the claims are. I could only find a short claims section at the end (1.5 pages out of 56). This doesn't read like most patents which tend to be lower on the details, and longer on the claims, I suspect that this was either written directly by the engineer, or written to effectively publish the details of the design to avoid others patenting their stuff out from under them (or both). Probably the original company went under and the patent was onsold to the troll. The actual claims have nothing to do with SRAM vs. DRAM (or even malloc) - my (lay) reading of these claims are that you have to have: - memory containing instructions and data - more than one processor containing a multiplier, an ALU, a logic unit, a bit processing unit - all the media processors running in parallel this does describe pretty much any modern multicore chip, or graphics chip, and perhaps more closely Sony's Cells for example. As a sometimes computer architect having a bunch of CPUs execute code and data out of shared memory is 'obvious' (and was at the time, I was building media processors before 1997, and frankly was 30 years before). As far as prior art - I'd consider any multi-cpu mainframe starting in the 1960's onwards to be valid prior art here If I were Sparkfun I'd pull in Arm, Intel, AMD, nVidia, Sony, IBM .... and nuke this thing from orbit