Specific Concrete Abstract Reality (Sorta)
I suppose if the true nature of things is inconvenient, then trying to re-define reality is the best thing they could do. The only thing, actually, other than dealing with the facts.
They are simply NOT telling the truth.
While their April 22, 2005 filing, uses "abstract" or "abstractions" at least sixteen times by page 15, they conveniently omit the very concrete, specific, NON-abstract data -- include some very suspiciously similar language and context -- starting on Page 20 of my Rule 56 Counterstatement filed on April 8, 2005.
Likewise, they overlook other hard, specific, NON-abstract comparisons of infringement previously cited in every document I have filed since they started this whole mess.
If you want the opposite of abstract, just wander through the specifics in any of these documents:
- My Counterclaim
- Defendant Lewis Perdue's Rule 56.1 Counterstatement pages 1-43.pdf
- Defendant Lewis Perdue's Rule 56.1 Counterstatement pages 44-47.pdf
- MOL in Opposition.pdf
- Lewis Perdue Declaration pages 1-21.pdf
- Exhibit A.pdf
- Exhibit B.pdf
- Exhibit C.pdf
- Exhibit D.pdf
- Donald David Declaration.pdf
- Declaration of John Gabriel Olsson.pdf
- Declaration of Gary Goshgarian.pdf