decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
a wedge lie (one of many)? | 310 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Mooted -> Decided?
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 07:43 AM EDT
I'd imagine it just shouldn't be mentioned in this case at all as its done and
dusted.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

a wedge lie (one of many)?
Authored by: mcinsand on Monday, July 01 2013 @ 08:57 AM EDT
My thought is that this is a wedge lie, intended to reopen a closed door just a
crack, in hopes of getting the chance to open it a bit more. IANAL, and one
attorney years ago gave a good talk about how some words that we use in normal
conversation have different meanings in a legal context. However, ‘moot,’ in my
field and experience, means that the level of significance has dropped below the
noise floor; for the moment, the issue is well below the level of a rounding
error… although significance could increase with a change in conditions (more
precise measurements, different conditions, etc.). SCOX looks to me to be
trying to say that certain issues were deemed relevant, and they want to reargue
the significance. The way I remember it, though, Novell versus SCOX affirmed
the original Novell sale language where Novell retained veto rights over any
litigative or other contract issues SCOX wanted to raise. In other words, those
issues were very relevant, in that the contract specifically withheld any rights
or privileges for SCOX to file the sorts of lawsuits SCOX was filing.

This has me thinking of a child that wants to really go to an R-rated movie, and
one parent responds with something like, ‘this is not an issue; you are not
going!’ The child then goes to the other parent saying that the first parent
had no issues with the child going.

Of course, a more Grokkish analogy would be the classic ‘parrot is dead’ sketch.
The previous ruling has certified that several of SCOX’ key parrots are dead,
and SCOX is still trying to argue.

Regards,
mc

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )