Quote:
Originally Posted by elcreative
Look up sarcasm sometime and get off your high horse and read your own posts as written rather than as re-written in your mind... I read what you post and comment accordingly...
You could also try to actually quote what people say when replying rather than using the publishers "selective review technique" to apparently bolster what your saying by using around 5% of a post... especially when the quote was clearly sarcastic...  |
Looks like I hit a nerve
Let me dissect it for you.
Quote:
|
Exactly. [1]He strikes me as a very arrogant person, presuming to know the law better than lawyers/judges, and assuming the role of leader in deliberations, [2]misleading the jury into thinking that prior art didn't apply because [3] "it does not run on the same hardware". [4]I do not presume to know whether this is basis for mistrial, [5]but it's certainly wrong.
|
[1]: I think the jury foreman is arrogant
[2]: he misled the jury with wrong information regarding prior art
[3]: I detail how he misled the jury
[4]: IANAL
[5]: misleading the jury is wrong (feel free disagree)
As you can see, I never said, or hinted, that the judge decision to deny mistrial was wrong.