> There is nothing in the screenshot's text which suggest the former is referring to the same person as the latter; in fact, I read it as expressly making a potential distinction.
Yes, precisely. You proved the complaint’s point. You think they might be distinct, and the complaint is pointing out that since they were the same person, this writing is intentionally misleading.
> If this is the basis of their complaint, I worry for Ubiquiti as a company.
Slow your roll. You just demonstrated the complaints point.
Regardless of the merits of the case as a whole, #6 is a fair point.
As for the grammar. It’s not Pulitzer level. But there are complete thoughts in each sentence, so it’s not wrong either.
> the complaint is pointing out that since they were the same person, this writing is intentionally misleading
I disagree (with the complaint, not with you). For one, if Sharp _was_ an employee in March and not at the time of writing, it is accurate to write it as-is, is it not?
The ad makes a couple of statements of fact, which parse true by my reckoning regardless of whether or not that person is one and the same.
I'm interested to see what comes of this, it feels to me like desperate swinging looking for something to make contact with.
Having filled my home, and recommended to many colleagues Ubiquiti gear, I have been nothing but disappointed with their output of late, so much so that I recently began switching away from their gear, there is _something_ going on within Ubiquiti and it smells off.
Sorry, it is not. You use 'a/an' to establish a new entity. 'a Ubiquiti employee' is clearly not the same as 'a former Ubiquiti developer'. The proper way to acknowledge an employee(establish new entity) has been let go is to say the employee(refer to previously established entity) was no longer employed there.
This is something you have to be very careful about in patent claims.
Yes, precisely. You proved the complaint’s point. You think they might be distinct, and the complaint is pointing out that since they were the same person, this writing is intentionally misleading.
> If this is the basis of their complaint, I worry for Ubiquiti as a company.
Slow your roll. You just demonstrated the complaints point.
Regardless of the merits of the case as a whole, #6 is a fair point.
As for the grammar. It’s not Pulitzer level. But there are complete thoughts in each sentence, so it’s not wrong either.