Reductio Ad Absurdum
this is calypso's argument:
Suppose Eb/No does not depend on distance, then their must exist a path whereby the user can proceed to an arbitrary distance from the short range base station and the quality control parameter will still be sufficient to hold the call
since this is totally absurd the court must accept proof by contradiction (ie argument by "Reductio Ad Absurdum")
suppose further that tmobile says that our phone can switch past the pre-established "range" that Payne is trying to push--then that evidence is inadmissible by the doctrine of illegality.
Tmobile would be in essence saying we are deliberately breaking the law, that is FCC standards, so that they can dodge infringement.
the judge already gave calypso all they need to win because the patent covers all switches within the pre-established range.
Eb/No, the bit rate quality control parameter, depends on a distance parameter, especially because in the absence of user movement its change is negligible, T-Mobile is a proxy for all the users that are providing the motion required to change the quality control parameter within the pre-established vicinity and they are benefiting economically.
Tmobile's system is not an amorphous one, changes in distance are the "secret sauce" underlying the process, and an amorphous system and method is inherently a non-FCC compliant solution.
QED
AI
