"according to many here, judge didn't understand what she was doing"
I say she did...
She ruled on half of item B....incomplete ...and she knew it. She was asked not to rule on item A, that being what is flash memory? With that consideration, IMO, she did not rule on the second half of item B which would have to take into account item A.
She understood both issues of item B...
DM decided to not have item A ruled on...not the judge, she obliged the plaintiffs wishes.
That said, I figure DM backed off because of the Phillips issue and the belittling comments surrounding it, and figured she would not tender the right language regarding the second half of item B (being digital considerations)....and rule on item A as the defendants considered, that being in line with the first half of item B only....and give no consideration at all to the second half of item B.
DM did not want to gamble with the issue of item A , even as straight forward a question of meaning can be.... what flash is memory ? It's just un-contradictory of what it is...and they did not trust the judge to deliver what it is... in its true meaning.
doni
