Or, you could simply note that cell phones aren't sentient ?
LOL!!!
The point from Woops' prior post was somewhat in error in noting that the CLYW attorneys most recent inputs appeared that they well agreed with what I described in relation to distance calculations.
The more relevant point appears it is that the judge and his expert understood something much like what I presented, and they crafted a definition that appears similar to and fully consistent with that understanding... or, at least, one that is similar to and not at all inconsistent with it.
The recent statements from the CLYW attorneys appear they address a different subject and issues other than what I addressed in relation to my opinion of the issues in the math, in how you do distance calculations, what constitutes a use of distance, and what constitutes infringement and what does not when you consider "the math" the way I did.
Now, the judge has said what the language means...
I think his opinion is considerably better and more technically correct than what was offered to him by the attorneys from either side...
But, the meaning of the language has been decided, now, and that leaves us addressing a situation in which that bit of language addressing the math is no longer the issue, or the only issue.
What the CLYW attorneys more recent statements are addressing... appears to be a completely different subject than what I'd covered in considering the math issues. And, it appears that their recent statements address what looks to me like it is a difference that is a matter of law that will of needs be addressed at trial, rather than addressing an ongoing effort still seeking a re-definition of the language ?
The T-Mobile attorneys statements, on the other hand, appear to remain focused on efforts intended to enable them in re-litigating aspects of the language usage issues... still trying to establish new meanings through others acceptance of their purposeful misuse of language... even after the judge has said what the language means.
I agree with others posting that the CLYW attorneys appear they clearly "get it" and have earned a solid pat on the back.
I'm not quite sure yet what I should make of the apparent frustration or confusion apparent on the T-Mobile side... and I'm reluctant to read too much into that at this point.
I don't think the puzzle is that hard. So, maybe it's just an effort in posturing... bad theater... or, maybe they're just out of new ideas, at the moment... Maybe it's nothing other than that they were honestly hoping to be able to win the ability to make the language addressing these things be more confusing, thus making the puzzle harder than it is... ?
My gut tells me that what I'm seeing there is perhaps consistent with what I've tended to see in other situations when the attorneys doing the work have not been quite as fully or properly informed by their clients as they might be...
How that potential might play in relation to the impact of the rulings on discovery... ?
I think the judge ruled in a way that he intended to narrow the focus to "the case before him"... and can't fault him for that bit of economy.
I don't see anything in the current situation that suggests any reason that we'll not proceed... so, we should have a couple more months to mull those other things over while waiting for trial to start...
.JPG)
AI
.JPG)
