|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 10:35 AM EST |
Why don't you write it? I have the flu
today. I have written some and I've provided
links in the past to articles by others.
So if you see gaps, fill them. If you don't
know how to write or don't feel like it,
collect some urls for everyone. Go for it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 11:22 AM EST |
You need to understand that you have just vectored into a
discussion that has
been on-going for months now. Rest
assured that every little nuance as you
point out has been
discussed here at some point. Many of us have read the court
fillings in intimate detail and the finer points of the Law
on all these
things you point out has become abundantly
clear to us. It is part of our
collective consciousness for
we regulars. We are not going to repeat all these
distinctions in every article, like you will see qualifiers
in the newspapers
repeated in every mention of something
like "HIV, the virus believed to cause
AIDs".
I've seen this in other examples- a love of
Posner's
opinion (because of the result against Apple) while
discarding the substantive
reasoning regarding SEPs and
hold-up value.
Could you
please provide us with a few examples where
SEPs have been used in a way that
caused holdup? It seems to
me that in practice, that never happens. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
