|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 23 2013 @ 11:58 PM EST |
| will do, thanks [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: bprice on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 12:30 AM EST |
---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hardmath on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 06:13 AM EST |
Early paragraph in Motorola's letter to the judge of Feb. 22,
done as text in the article. I compared to the PDF to make
sure this is a valid typo/OCR artifact.
---
Recursion is the opprobrium of the mathists. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 05:04 PM EST |
I checked the letter and it is spelled correctly.
----
Microsoft's letter to Judge Robart, which it failed to make available in a copy
and paste version, strikes a "between us buddies" tone in the opening
paragraph:
Dear Judge Robart:
Motorola apparently intends to submit as new "evidence" a January
15, 2013 letter from Motorola's German counsel regarding Orange Book issues in
the German action. Microsoft submits that any ongoing issue related to the
Oraange Book process have no bearing on the matters currently pending before the
Court, as the Court has recognized previously. Moreover, Motorola had ample
opportunity to address any potentially relevant aspect of the Orange Book
process previously. Its belated efforts to massage the record should be
disregarded.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 10:56 AM EST |
Then allow registration.
Since you don't want my help, I won't bother point out "Also
neither Motorola or Google" should be a neither, nor
construction. Oops, guess I already pointed it out.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
