Thank you for the very entertaining link. The following is not particularly a disagreement with the overall intent of your comment; it's largely a tangent. Pe

Thank you for the very entertaining link. The following is not particularly a disagreement with the overall intent of your comment; it's largely a tangent. Perhaps, as a non-lawyer, I'm missing what's actually going on in that conversation, but it seems to me that just in those 10 minutes, a lot of airtime is being spent on rhetorical manoeuvring and persuasion. The main example here involves the very idea of using a dictionary as some kind of authority. It's nonsense to suppose that a dictionary is anything but alphabetized preposterous oversimplifications. With application to that deposition, we all know that that definition of "operating system" is the sine qua non of what is usually meant by an academic, but that no consumer who goes to buy an "operating system" is expecting to get only resource-management functionality. They expect a shell (CLI shell, GUI shell, or whatever), for example, which by those academic definitions is clearly an application and not part of the OS. It might be a bit silly to next-century-quarterback someone as smart as WG3, but it seems to me that perhaps he dropped the rhetorical ball under pressure here; I think a more persuasive reply would be something like "there exist contexts in which that's what those words mean, and there are contexts where that is NOT what those words mean". I suspect that'd have been a better rhetorical manoeuvre. Why does Boies keep mentioning that dictionary is by MS Press? Does he think the audience missed it the first time, or the second time? I suggest it's for some reason involving "conventional persuasiveness". Once again, I suspect I shoulda gone into law. It just seems so fun. Shitty dress code, though.