At first glance it seems like the article is showcasing a dumb "IT professional, but I'm about halfway through the transcript and I cannot fucking decide what the hell is going on. I think he might actually know what one is but is ridiculous giving a huge amount of weaselwords to try and get around some other possible legal problem?
EDIT: The questioning attorney is hilarious.
Quote:
If you feel stupid, it's not because I'm making you feel that way.
How about this: Have you ever heard the term "photocopier" or "photocopy" used in the Recorder's office by anybody?
Marburger: Have you ever--do you have machines there where I can put in a paper document, push a button or two, and out will come copies of that paper document also on paper? Do you have such a machine?
Patterson: Yes, sir.
Marburger: What do you call that machine?
Patterson: Xerox.
Marburger: Xerox. Is the machine made by the Xerox Company? Is that why it's called Xerox?
Patterson: No.
|
EDIT2: It seems that he's just a dumbfuck.