|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
One way the pro-software-patent side belittled Judge Prost's dissent in the CLS
Bank case was by portraying her as a hot-head who was too quick to criticize
other judges. The majority judges even played the victim a bit in the
footnotes.
One advantage that the "strained, super-literal interpretation" has is
that it shows Judge Prost behaving differently than the way the
pro-software-patent people painted her. It shows Judge Prost getting the
necessary point across with appropriate subtlety. That, in turn demonstrates
that Judge Prost's blunt dissent in the CLS Bank case wasn't merely a knee-jerk
reaction by someone who just always behaves that way.
Anyway, in case you mind isn't completely made up, that may be something to
consider.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 10:47 PM EDT |
I see you have no legal training. Here's the part you
missed:I see you have no legal training. Here's the part you
missed:
The district court concluded that Apple had the better
argument....(citing ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa,
Inc.... No, I didn't miss that. Please don't claim that
people thought things that they didn't think or missed things that they didn't
miss. A person certainly doesn't need legal training to see that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
