She didn't nail anyone, she was asked, which she obliged, where IMO, she didn't have to, ...not to condition the meaning of "flash memory" as phrased and related to specific claims of the original patent.

She stopped...What if she didn't stop, and ruled that "flash memory" as conditioned in claims (and you have to understand the specific issues) of the patent.....that RAM was not required? As a pay back for the DM comment...

I would not be here, ... and I'd be giving up on the judicial system.

For now, victim of circumstance.

doni