As usual, misunderstood. The comment about judges fairness was not made from the viewpoint of a poster about a judge or judges. It was made from the viewpoint of a poster negative on vplm towards the pro vplm posters who are so obviously biased in the way they conveniently use or at least attempt to use, what has been said, and rewrite it to go against the OP. My intended meaning was not, whether a judges ruling is fair or not, but that WHEN the ruling is favorable to vplm, the pro side lauds how it's finally a fair judge or a fair ruling, but when rulings have gone against vplm, the same pro posters manipulate the conversation to say that it's an unfair judge, in some cases and in other cases they begin to make excuses for why the judge ruled seemingly against their sentiments as tho it was really, in afterthought, a blessing in disguise and/or they find way (seen it so many times here) to take what AT FIRST BLUSH, seems to be a hit against vplm and then craftily construct a more positive way of interpreting the judges ruling. The one exception to that is the koh rulings. But in that case it's kind of a reversal of above. All the pro vplm categorically swore she is a clueless idiot who knows nothing about patent law and who ruled strictly in favor of silicon valley companies. To be honest I don't look too deeply into the law in these aspects. So I would never pretend to say her rulings were good bad or indifferent. She may very well have made bad rulings about with respect to vplm. I don't know. However I DID do ALOT of DD about her as a judge and I don't give a shit about whatever you or all the others say about what a stupid and all the other childish name calling that was used so disrespectfully. She has an extremely achieved background and history. She holds a freakin doctorate in law from Harvard for cryin out loud and was accepted and welcomed by something like a 98-0 vote from the senate and was chosen by a POTUS! And governors as well. Those things alone are something I doubt you could even dream of having achieved, esp the Harvard law doctorate. As to her being unfairly biased in favor of silicon valley companies I gave a half hearted attempt to look at that but I wasn't able to determine if true or not. One thing, no 2 things I took notice of were in some cases, maybe even most cases, she presided over 2 companies who were BOTH silicon valley companies and if i recall correctly, the famous smoking Crack remark she made in open court was indeed about a silicon valley lawyer. Mightve even been the very company (I forget at the moment) whom she used to work for or lawyer for, that many here have often said she favors. Well, her most famous really negative remark was made against lawyer for her alleged pals.
Ive already stated I'm not arguing her fairness or lack thereof so I don't want to hear any of that. My only point was the MAJOR MAJOR UNFAIRNESS AND DISRESPECT SHOW TO HER HERE ONLY BY PRO VPLM POSTERS. But when something is said or done by someone on the side of vplm, but seems to be wrong, like all the inside wholesale selling or the dismissals by the Texas judge, THEN...... the pro side always quickly finds a way to turn it into a positive. And no wonder, their teacher is one of the biggest bullshitters of all time. Well, I better get off here now to give room for the name calling and ridiculing to inevitably come.
All my commentary is to be considered as my personal opinions, to which I am entitled. And there is no proof of said opinions unless I offer it in the comments.
AI
