|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 14 2013 @ 06:56 AM EDT |
...to learn by his mistakes, are bound to repeat them again and again.
You sir are still wrong. What you believe you see is not what you see.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NigelWhitley on Sunday, July 14 2013 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
Except, of course, that you didn't say that. There was no mention of discovery
in that paragraph. There was mention of Samsung pointing out how their code
fails to meet the requirements of the claim, but the trial excerpt is of Apple
purporting to indicate how Samsung's code infringes. So the excerpt shows
behaviour opposite to what you suggested and matching my description. There is
no mention in the excerpt from the trial to the "code that stops
translation based on edge position". In fact there's no reference to
translation or to edge position (although well spotted that it mentions code).
The lawyer references "THIS FEATURE" (their caps) and the witness
refers to "PERTINENT CODE". So it isn't as you now represent either.
The second paragraph is a complete straw man. You deliberately misrepresent what
I wrote and then dismiss what I didn't say. I suggest you read it again and
interpret it correctly. You seem very keen on reading.
The final paragraph is a blank statement without any new supporting evidence and
is simply a restatement of your original post, despite failing to rebut any of
the points presented to counter that in the interim.
So, in that short post you've misrepresented what you said, misrepresented what
the trial excerpt said and misrepresented what I said. As a kind of reward for
your hat trick your mind has remained unchanged - to the surprise of none and
the amusement of all.
------------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
