You really make me laugh, Gussie. Often wrong but never, ever, in doubt. Stay away from the legal stuff, Gussie, before your fellow IDCC longs sue you for practicing without a license or for abject incompetence and legal malpractice.
)You can't rebut the fact that the judge did overturn the jury verdict in favor of Mitsubishi.
Easy as pie, big boy.
Did you read the Court of Appeals decision I posted, you big, bad Oliver Wendell Holmes, you?
Didn't think so.
Can you read the last line: "Affirmed." That means, dummy, that the Trial Court's action was upheld. Now, by the numbers, what exactly was the Trial Court's action that the Court of Appeals affirmed?
Let's go to the top of the Court of Appeals decision (I know, I know, this is like teaching a first-grader, but what can I do with a dumb-ass like Gussie?). Read this directly from the Court of Appeals decision a/k/a the horse's mouth:
The district court entered judgment on the jury verdicts and denied all post-trial motions. We affirm the judgment.
law.emory.edu
That dummy, means that the Trial Court did not overturn the jury verdict, and entered a judgment in favor of Ampex per the jury's findings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, i.e., did exactly what the trial court did.
What you got to say about that, Gussie?
Please respond, I'm having too much fun with you.
How can anyone take you seriously on the legal end of complex patent and trademark matters when you can't even get to first base on the most rudimentary aspects of a decision? You stick your foot in your mouth every time I've seen you pronounce on these matters.
I must say, however, that it is cheap entertainment. |
