Sure, 32-bit addressing with 64-bit memory operations, but that said, I wasn't aware of any existing videogame console even today with 4GB or more of memory so

Sure, 32-bit addressing with 64-bit memory operations, but that said, I wasn't aware of any existing videogame console even today with 4GB or more of memory so it seems a bit pedantic to disqualify on that basis or are you saying there has yet to actually be such a console? Or are you saying if the chip squanders transistors so that it's capable of 64-bit addressing, but they're useless because there's less than a GB of memory on-board, the addressing alone constitutes magic blue crystals of 64-bit legitimacy? The horrendous handling of the Jaguar by Atari aside, and despite its unfortunate resemblance to a bedpan, it was a surprisingly powerful machine for the time, no harder to program than the ragingly successful PS2 (IMO of course), and the best way to show it off was to make full use of its 66 MHz worth of instruction issue (2 x 26.6 MHz RISC process plus a 13.3 MHz 68000 and its 64-bit memory operations. For example, the Jaguar version of Doom was the best of all ports at the time: http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Atari_Jaguar http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Atari_Jaguar All that said, I find reminiscing on video game consoles of the past to be a more positive experience than what this lawsuit has demonstrated about the state of patent law. Sure, Samsung copied Apple's look and feel. Why is this and why should this be illegal unless they literally slapped the word IPhone or IPad on their gadgets? Might as well have banned the Chevy Camaro for copying the Ford Mustang IMO.