the additional point that rangeCheck slightly decreases
performance, which I say 1) doesn't really have much significance compared to
the argument that it's presence doesn't improve performance; 2) isn't in the
record, so not applicable to a Rule 50(b) motion.
Your first
point is highly debatable. If you tell me that something "doesn't improve
performance" I will wonder why you felt compelled to copy it. If you tell me
"we're glad Oracle pointed that out -- we used rangecheck (as the copyright
license allows us to) internally for testing, and forgot to remove it when we
shipped. But now that they let us know, we've removed it, and performance went
up! Thanks again, Oracle!" then you've done several things: a) given me a
plausible reason why it happened, b) explained in a believable way that you
really removed it and didn't try to backdoor it back in, and c) explained, again
in a plausible way, that it was a mistake.
Your point (2) is the entire
point of the post you were responding to -- maybe they didn't muff it on this
filing, but if that's true, all it means is that they muffed it earlier.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|