DONI, I REALIZE MICRON IS NOT "SPECIFICALLY, FORMALLY, OR OVERTLY" ADMITTING TO INFRINGING EDIG'S IP. THAT IS A GIVEN, HOWEVER IT IS NOT DENYING IT HAS INFRINGED ON EDIG'S IP EITHER, IN PARTICULAR, IF WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE FROM THE INFORMATION I GARNERED FROM JUDGE HUFF'S EXTENSIVE QUESTIONING MICRON ON "INTENT" BEING ITS MAIN DEFENSE FOCUS.
IF MICRON MAKES NO EFFORT TO DENY ANY INFRINGEMENT IN IT'S DEFENSE INSTEAD RELYING SOLELY ON INVALIDATING 108 DUE TO PRIOR ART, IS THAT NOT A TACIT ADMISSION IT CANNOT/WILLNOT DEFEND ITS KNOWN USE OF THE TECHNOLOGY BELONGING TO EDIG IT IS USING WITHOUT LEGAL PERMISSION?
IF EDIG PREVAILS BY PROVING 108 IS VALID AND NOT BASED ON PRIOR ART (INTENT OF 108) AND PREVAILS ON THE QUESTION OF MICRON INFRINGING,THEN IS THE QUESTION OF "INFRINGING ON EDIG'S IP" STILL ON THE TABLE BY MICRON SINCE IT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO DENY IT'S GUILT IN THAT AREA?
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. IF EDIG PREVAILS ON IT'S SUIT AGAINST MICRON FOR INFRINGING, NO MATTER WHAT MICRON DOES, THEN EDIG HAS WON IT'S INFRINGING CASE AND MICRON CANNOT DO ANYTHING AT THAT POINT EXCEPT PERHAPS APPEAL.
I STILL REMAIN PUZZLED AS TO WHY MICRON IS GOING TO REST, AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF IT'S DEFENSE, ON "INTENT" WITHOUT EXTENSIVELY DENYING INFRINGEMENT. IT POINTS ME TO THE FACT THAT MICRON KNOWS IT STRONGEST CASE IS "INTENT" INVALIDATION NOT INFRINGEMENT DENIAL SINCE IT KNOWS EDIG WOULD PREVAIL.
THEREFORE, IT MAY BE A VERY LARGE ASSUMPTION ON MY PART, BUT THE WORDS AND FACTS SUGGEST MICRON IS TACITLY ADMITTING TO INFRINGING....
