|
|
|
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
