I am quite sure I left much out of this affair, mainly because I did not understand a lot of what Micron was trying to do. But I do remember a lot of what was said but cannot connect that in a coherant way because I do not know just what Micron was trying to "DISAVOLL" OR exactly what they meant by "DIRECT ACCESS". among other things. So please ask me any questions that might occur to you and if it was brought up and I can connect it with what was said in the courtroom I will.
One thing that I was a little amazed at was in Micron's opening statements was and admonission to the judge that, "MICRON KNEW OF HER PREVIOUS RULINGS ON THIS SUBJECT BUT WHAT MICRON WAS ARGUEING TODAY WERE THE DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF CLAIM #1 (I BELIEVE) WHICH IF MICRON PREVAILED THE JUDGE MIGHT HAVE TO REVISIT.
The judge shot back at him immediately by asking him if he meant she whould have to "vacate" her previous rulings. She did NOT SOUND VERY FRIENDLY WITH THAT QUESTION.
Micron immediately backed off and said, No those stand on their merits....etc... I don't think they did themselves any favors with that one.
