Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BMWLotAttendant
My suggestion: re-read his replies. He's answered your question.  |
Well, BMW, I think he's completely avoided the question, but I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if so.
Remember, what I asked was NOT the legalese arguments or pleadings, or his lawyerly thoughts on why it might be decided this way or that way, but simply if the RESULT in the real-world marketplace of a RIM win would be the "de-facto" ownership by RIM of a trademark preventing any other phone/PDA firm from using the word "black" in any way in the name of a product.
I've seen it more than once - not on TV, but in REAL courtrooms where I've been involved on the periphery of product liability suits, and a couple times where I've been a juror - where the witness is asked a question, and rather than answer the question, takes off on a long-winded tangent instead. Generally it ends up that the Judge interrupts the witness (often after the questioning lawyer asks) and directs him to simply answer the question which was asked. That's all I'm asking here.
Seems to me to be a very simple yes/no question - if RIM wins, are there ANY circumstances under which ANY phone/PDA manufacturer could EVER use the word "black" in a name, and if he answered it, I sure missed the answer. So, if you saw the answer you say I failed to recognize, by all means, please enlighten me - was it yes, or no?