1. I'm sorry but I have to make a correction, the Blackies all wore 3 PIECE SUITS, not two piece as I erronisly reported. In fact the vest that Mr. Apple wore cost more than my new, rather large, Sony TV.
I have to say more about this subject since I do not understand just why they, and those on the phone, lurking, were there...Evidently all of them elected Mr. Apple to be the "lead man" or spokesman for this bash, so why didn't they just stay home???? THEY WERE NOT NEEDED. I looked at all of them, they never moved, took notes or even seemed interested in the proceedings. (IMO) Mr. Apple was the ONLY attorney present who said or did anything....
Ah, billable hours......I should have been a lawyer......No wonder these shindigs cost so much.
2. 108 was brought up, I'm not clear on who initiated it but I think it may have been our side because Mr. Apple sure "bloviated" on the subject...Mr. Handel explained to the judge exactly what he said in the material he presented the judge beforehand. He was factual, on point and brief. Mr. Apple gave the most disconnected and wide ranging answer that subject but in essence it was, "108 was included in the CE, even though it was NOT part of the original Colorado case, because it was, in effect, the same as 774. The only difference being it had 2 microphones not just one as 774 has and therefore it had no consequence.
I do not understand quite what he was "technically" speaking of but I do know he went on and on saying "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING".....(IMO) Mr. Handel was offered a rebuttal and completely shot down Mr. Apple's arguement....He was again, on point, brief and FACTUAL and the judge seemed to give more credence to his explanation than he did to Mr. Apples. (IMO I like this guy.....no bloviating
3. SMAN, I thought of you when Mr. Handel brought up a case on point that seemed to mirror our case. He had just discovered this case so it was not included in his material previously submitted to the judge. I did not catch the name of the plaintiff but the the defendent was .........another guess......APPLE......Mr. Handel told the judge the particulars and asked for it to be included in his deliberations since it was "on point" relating to EDig's case.....and the upshot was Apple either lost or settled this case......
This seemed to irk Mr. Apple a bit since he got up and peevishly talked down to Mr. Handel and (I think) the judge. He stated he "worked for Apple" was familiar with case and in fact had been the attorney on the case. He gave no answer to Mr. Handel's statement that this was essentially the same as EDig's case and that Apple either lost or settled.
If in fact if this is true then it's no wonder why Mr. Apple did not bring it up in his defense. In fact Mr. Apple did not bring up much other than Colorado, pre Markman. The more I think about it the more I (feel) these guys thought they had a "slam dunk" against a little company of no consequence (EDig). In my mind they were unprepared and all they had to do was show up to win.......
SMAN, this new case brought up by Mr. Handel was very recent and only concluded in April of this year. It was not said that Apple was the only defendent or not but you are pretty damn good in finding things like this so I am sure you will be able to do so, and post it. I think it will make for good reading.....
Frank
