I was about to point out that it is Apple who puts "Developers" in quotes, and
that it is just a way of introducing an abbreviation, as
in:
software development companies (collectively “Developers” or
“defendants”) who create software applications (“Apps”)
but when
searching the documents I found this, which is, no doubt, what you are
commenting upon:
10. Answering the first sentence in paragraph 10,
Plaintiff admits that some of the defendants and/or “Developers” are smaller
than Intervenor. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in the first sentence
of paragraph 10, and on that basis denies each and every remaining allegation
contained in the first sentence of paragraph 10.
You may be
right that Lodsys does not want to accept Apple's definition without question,
and that does not seem unreasonable to me. In general, it is poor strategy to
let your opponent in a argument choose the names for things without
question.
Most imperative is to rectify names.
—Confucius [XIII (Zi~Lu) S3]
What seems remarkable
about this paragraph is that Lodsys admits it knows nothing about this, and
therefore denies it. That seems to be normal practice in law, but, where I come
from, if you don't know about something you reserve judgement on it.
Lawyers
just call each other liars until proven otherwise. The current author is
without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegation that they are all liars, and on that basis admits it. I know
they are prolix.
— Programmer in Chief
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|