現在看看LGE與廣達是怎樣講道理的
原文在之ㄧ出現過
在此做進一步分析
『We next consider the extent to which a product must embody a patent in order to trigger exhaustion. Quanta argues that, although sales of an incomplete article do not necessarily exhaust the patent in that article, the sale of the microprocessors and chipsets exhausted LGE’s patents in the same way the sale of the lens blanks exhausted the patents in Univis. Just as the lens blanks in Univis did not fully practice the patents at issue because they had not been ground into finished lenses, Quanta observes, the Intel Products cannot practice the LGE Patents—or in¬deed, function at all—until they are combined with memory and buses in a computer system. If, as in Univis, patent rights are exhausted by the sale of the incomplete item, then LGE has no postsale right to require that the patents be practiced using only Intel parts. Quanta also argues that exhaustion doctrine will be a dead letter unless it is triggered by the sale of components that essentially, even if not completely, embody an invention. Otherwise, patent holders could authorize the sale of computers that are complete with the exception of one minor step—say, inserting the microprocessor into a socket—and extend their rights through each downstream purchaser all the way to the end user.』
最高法院接下來要考慮，一個產品要實施（涵蓋）一件專利多大的範圍，才能適用專利耗盡原則。首先看廣達怎麼說。廣達試圖說服法官廣達和Univis一樣可適用專利耗盡原則，所以一心想和Univis專利耗盡一案中的Univis掛鉤。
我們來看看廣達是如何講道理的。首先廣達說廣達和Univis一樣未完全實施一件專利，而Intel的產品未完全實施LGE的專利，就如同Univis沒有對鏡片進行拋光作業。Univis一案是incomplete item在販售後專利耗盡，如果此案成立，則LGE的專利就和Univis一案一樣不能主張售後仍有專利權。而且廣達認為專利耗盡原則是當元件essentially實施了一件發明後即可適用，否則專利權人會擴張他們的權利到下游廠商，即使下游廠商做的只是one minor step。
廣達講道理的方式有點問題。
首先廣達把Intel的產品類比於Univis的鏡片，卻又補充說Univis的鏡片是incomplete item。但是，Intel的產品並不是incomplete item。這世界不會有人把microprocessor和chipset看作是incomplete item吧。就晶片而言，包裝好之後就不能算是incomplete item。Item Incompletely embodying a patent（Intel）和incomplete item（Univis）是兩回事吧！
其次廣達認為專利耗盡原則是當元件essentially實施了一件發明後即可適用，接下來提到，否則下游廠商甚至消費者的插拔晶片的行為也會侵權（販賣恐懼感，所以把消費者也拖下水）。廣達的意思應該是只要元件essentially實施了一件發明，專利耗盡原則就適用了，但是廣達卻沒說，怎樣做算是essentially實施了一件發明。既沒有舉例說明，也沒有對essentially下定義，是要依賴法官的裁決嗎？律師不是該設法說服法官贊同自己的見解嗎？怎麼好像在等待法官做裁決呢（除非最高法院的判決書把廣達說理的地方給刪掉了）？
『LGE, for its part, argues that Univis is inapplicable here for three reasons. First, it maintains that Univis should be limited to products that contain all the physical aspects needed to practice the patent. On that theory, the Intel Products cannot embody the patents because additional physical components are required before the patents can be practiced. Second, LGE asserts that in Univis there was no “patentable distinction” between the lens blanks and the patented finished lenses since they were both subject to the same patent. Brief for Respondent 14 (citing Univis, supra, at 248–252). In contrast, it describes the Intel Products as “independent and distinct products” from the systems using the LGE Patents and subject to “independent patents.” Brief for Respondent 13. Finally, LGE argues that Univis does not apply because the Intel Prod¬ucts are analogous to individual elements of a combination patent, and allowing sale of those components to exhaust the patent would impermissibly “ascrib[e] to one element of the patented combination the status of the patented invention in itself.” Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Re¬placement Co., 365 U. S. 336, 344–345 (1961).』
LGE試圖讓本案與Univis脫鉤，因此LGE嘗試列舉Intel的產品和Univis的產品不同之處，並設法說服法官這些差異足以使得Univis的判例不適用於本案。
首先LGE認為Univis的產品涵蓋專利所有的保護範圍，但是Intel的產品還需要其他(公司？)元件才能涵蓋專利所有的保護範圍。其次Univis一案中鏡片本身與完成專利之鏡片沒有patentable distinction，因為他們都subject to the same patent；但是Intel的產品相對於使用LGE專利的系統為兩者之間為independent and distinct products，且Intel的產品和使用LGE專利的系統都subject to inde¬pendent patents。最後Univis是一個元件實施整件發明，但是Intel的產品是一些元件的組合來實施整件發明。
LGE找出了兩案之間的差異，可是卻沒找到法官想要釐清的重點。如同前一段開宗明義所說的，最高法院要考慮的是”一個產品”要實施（涵蓋）一件專利多大的範圍，才能適用專利耗盡原則，而不只是Univis一案是否適用於本案。所以LGE第一點和第三點都是做了白工。
最高法院的功能應該是釐清法律實施過程晦暗不明的地方，而不應該只是判定某一前案是否適用於某一後案。LGE完全不提為何廣達不適用專利耗盡原則，只是一味說明Intel為何和Univis不同。這表示LGE完全忽略最高法院的功能，問題在於有意還是無意？
討論一下LGE第二點所說的。因為Univis一案中拋光前與拋光後的鏡片都屬於相關專利專利範圍所保護的範圍，所以沒有”可專利性的差異(區隔)”(patentable distinction）。其實拋光前後都是同一件產品,但是Intel的產品與廣達的產品涵蓋的範圍有大小的差別,起碼元件數目差很多,還能以同一產品來兌戴兒相提並論嗎?
文章定位：
