Sosa,
Have you read the motion to reconsider? Believe it or not it already clearly indicates TM's game plan. I'm going to let the cat out of the bag now: TM wants the court to believe that CLYW MUST determine (measure,calculate) the distance so they will know they are within the vicinity range. TM argues that since they only use signal strength and quality, they have never infringed on the 923 patent. Just like the distance between your ears there is a lot going on(hopefully for you at least) between the two arguments.
If you have read my previous posts, you would know how wrong I have been about things. I consider myself in grade school on these issues. Read some of the Matthews latest motion. It is a doctoral thesis by comparison both for the law and the interpretation of the patent language. I am trying deeply to understand what both sides so well understand they know what lever needs to be pulled to get their desired affect. It is all far above me and you think i'm working for TM or to help TM??? You are completely wrong.
Sosa, if I had my way, I would like for an expert to sit down with me and draw little pictures, or make little figurines, or make a video and completely explain what the hell is going on in the patent language. I still don't completely get it and it is very frustrating.
Moving on, the main issue that concerns me is this: The Matthews motions raises some very good points. Clearly, to me at least anyway, the Judge has fudged up. I assume he relied heavily on his technical advisor. If that is the case, the Matthews lawyers have made mince meat out of his technical advisor. There is little doubt about it. It will be very telling to me to see if the judge will 'man up' and see the error of his ways, or will he be just another corruption of the judicial system. I am very anxious to find out.
