I too believe that Judge Ward had a (favorable to us) grip on the "varying together" thing. Based on his analogy, he gets the varying together IN PROPORTION aspect, and doesn't buy the defendants' bit about varying together in a 1:1 ratio. In acknowledged ignorance, I think I KNOW that the defendants' argument was based on focusing on the word "together", necessitating a 1:1, exact same variance (depending on the demands on the components). The "in proportion" thought (which, to me, was the obvious intent of the language) kinda kills the defendents' argument, IMO.

But I KNOW nuttin'!

Welcome to the world of posting, Kaos558! Don't be a stranger!

SGE