GERS... This is why I emphasized finding something unlawful about the Defendants, then strike down hard, even if it was a verbal agreement that wasn't documented!
Anyway, I still believe that GERS would not have done anything wrong intentionally, but which could have been neutralized if the people involved in the Co' discussions prior to the event(s) were brought forward to testify, and/or had a document or two to show why they did what they did?
Maybe Gers did not take the Test BAR situation seriously enough, as they relied more on the patents than the so-called Business infraction, and did not CLEAR-UP the test BAR situation enough during the main phases of the trial? In that case, it would be natural for the judges to rely on the Judge's verdict in the first trial! Early judicial rulings mean a lot, and if we did not dig deep enough to convince the present Judges, then we had to pay the PIPER! That so-call misconduct by the lower Court Judge formed a strong base ruling from which all other matters were predicated upon thereafter!
I had a feeling that something was amiss when I read parts of the back and forth interactions between Attorneys on both sides when addressing the Appeals court a year or more ago, when our Attorneys seemed too Da-n confident and too arrogant when they almost defiantly said the Lower Court judge was "IN ERROR," and said it quite a few times besides other things that demeaned the Lower Court? No presiding Judges take kindly when hearing that kind of Defaming language? I remarked about it on the GERS unofficial Skunk site at the time!
The Lower Court rulings are always powerful, and if GERS (The Attorneys,) did not fully consider the power that decision had, then they had better go back to School? Yes GERS tried to overrule that ruling, but maybe they did it the wrong way? No one but those people involved in the interactions on both sides way back when, could have answered that Question properly, so GERS should have brought back some of those early conversations and agreements earlier on, and relied upon them rather that what other agencies like the USPTO had to say?
But maybe not all is lost? We may live through that dilemma by seeing where and how they may object to that ruling, if it is so catastrophically negative? If there was some misunderstanding by the Judges, and we can possibly prove it through witnesses who experienced the Legal Verbal interactions taking place back then, then who knows how far that could get? We were placed in a bad light, no one can deny that fact, so maybe we are not guilty as charged? But we had ample time to straighten things out, so the system cannot go on and on with matters of Gers importance? Attorneys have so much to do, it is easy to neglect certain areas, even when they are important? IMO only....
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
