|
KaVir:
Uh, yes. We do not disagree in substance here.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
The issue I have been arguing is that your use of that FAQ answer as proof that this ad cannot possibly infringe BECAUSE_THE_AD_ONLY_USES_A_BRIEF_PHRASE is bogus.
I have backed up my argument by presenting instances in which certain uses of certain brief phrases have been found sufficient to create an infringement . This is sufficient to invalidate your reasoning. Arguing your conclusions or the FAQ statement back at me doesn't make your reasoning valid.
QED.
That's an opinion, not a fact. It would be very presumptuous of either of us to attempt to make a de minimus ruling one way or ther other. Stating an opinion is fine, and I have endeavored to label mine as such.
Stilton
|