Well for one, I don’t know if you’ve listened to panel hearings before but usually the judges come in leaning one way and question that way. To me it seemed like two of them really questioned SFOR and just tried to keep SA within bounds instead of questioning their analogies.
Secondly, I think it’s not good for SFOR that their pre-school analogy was picked apart and SA’s wasn’t. The judges seemed to agree that the claims were not specific enough to only apply to computers and that can cause a bad ruling for SFOR.
I honestly wasn’t expecting to hear what I heard. I thought SFOR would come in and make a very good argument blowing SA out of the water. Which would give them a chance as the appellant. Instead it seemed it went SA’s way and worse case it was even. I think it’ll be very difficult for the judges to overturn but I could be wrong. SFOR didn’t do a good enough job saying that their claims are clearly computer specific and have not been done before in any manor. Their Aunt Sally analogy seemed to get shot down while they tried to prove this when SA said their analogy only proved the person had the right credentials and not that they were who they actually said they were. The judges seemed to accept that.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
