cguilfor has two separate and distinct commentary going...

1...The implicit and explicit consideration for RAM having always been there...

"RAM has always been there. The changes were editorial, not substantive."

And his/her final comment makes sense to me.

However.....

=====================================================

2..."...a wholly different invention was created." Oh yeah baby!

That highlight comment was by silversurfer, as meaning this is great...

It's not great...as the comment silver sees as great should have gone unsaid.

Where cguilfor explains to silver the following....

"But, we need to reassert that there were no substantive changes in the '774 patent.

In other words, infringers can't be allowed to claim that they are not liable for past damages."

Where I injected into the thread .....

There's no problem of "not liable for past damages. " with regard to 737 as long as 774 stands.

Meaning 774 can be substantive or non substantive(The changes were editorial, not substantive.)"...as long as it stands.

737 has no issue of substantive changes. ....with that past infringement is no problem.

Anyway....maybe the comment silver saw as great...."...a wholly different invention was created."....might lend to the future of NUNCHI.

anyway....

doni