And that was immediately followed up by a sentence talking very reasonably about slight loaf-to-loaf variation, which is the real argument being made there and elsewhere and in court.
The actual lawsuit never went to court, they settled and then the settlement was overturned, and my claim was just that this definition was part of the reason the suit didn't work. What more are you expecting out of this?
>judge ruled on it, so there were definitely things being said in court
The judge ruled on the settlement, nor the actual merits of the case.
I only called it their legal argument as you did not understand what I was saying, I probably could have worded that better. It was their stated position on the issue, and is very similar to the "fully self driving" being discussed.
I am done with this, if you want to think I oversold Subway's claim, I disagree but fine.
> It was their stated position on the issue, and is very similar to the "fully self driving" being discussed.
I think if people were pulling "fully self driving" out of some random facebook post that discusses the capabilities in the next sentence, then the complaint would be something to sigh at and ignore.
And that was immediately followed up by a sentence talking very reasonably about slight loaf-to-loaf variation, which is the real argument being made there and elsewhere and in court.
reply