If she had it in her mind to be fair(as she noted) at the outset, ...all she has to do is drop the " digital data" which infers the need for RAM, and drop the "NO RAM" issue which infers RAM and fashion her response around that.

rephrase...

If she had it in her mind to be fair(as she noted) at the outset, ...all she has to do is drop the " digital data" which infers the need for RAM, and drop the "NO RAM" issue which infers Analog signals and fashion her response around that.

The court could have stayed out of it...it did not. She(IMO) ambition-ed for what was requested at the close of the hearing.... a "dispositive" consideration and not a resolution to proceed as I feel a court should do.

Now I ask you...did she tip the balance as a "matter of law"?

doni