You shoulda been her expert consultant. I don't think she used any as your posts show clearly the technical confusions in the decision...

Before I go on, will you please save these post for future reference. It would be interesting if DM goes after her on the technical issues.?

The reason I say this is the fact that DM can attack this "UN-DECISION", (O.K SPEC, you like that one, Lol...), on many legal grounds which will have it reversed by the 10th Circuit...

For example, she failed to address the remaining 6 claims that were set for the Hearing but not tried by the parties...

Jameson clearly stated that if she ruled for defendants she she should address the 6 untried claims based on the law pronounced by PHILLIPS CASE...

She seems to imply she has ruled for defendants, although she disclaims it, and then relying on defendants posture she is not ruling on the 6 claims as Jameson asked...

10th Circuit will be all over that type of decision making by proxy reference.

The more I read 395 the more I get convinced that DM are having a party now as they have another case for making more law with the 10th Circuit...LoL...lOL...

Gil...