|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
And please, Judge, make them spend 98% of their time proving the bleedin'
obvious, so they don't have time to get around to disproving our claims.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
Twin Peaks is doing it to a slightly unusual degree, but
this kind of pleading is totally normal.
Party A: "software X was written in 1973 by James Smith".
Suppose Party B is in possession of that software, including
its source code and all supporting documentation, all of
which bear a prominent copyright notice stating exactly what
Party A just claimed. That still doesn't mean Party B
*knows* who wrote the software or when. Party B only knows
that that's what the copyright notice says. Party B wasn't
present when the software was written, and doesn't know
whether the copyright notice is truthful. So Party B can
"deny" in all honesty, and force Party A to prove it in
court. This makes life only a tiny bit harder for Party A,
but in court it's normal to take every little advantage you
can get.
Denying a point of law? That's unusual, and I think Mark is
right: it means they want to spend their time arguing for a
change in the law ('cause they sure don't seem to have good
case on the facts, under current law).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|