gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:53:53 +0200

Tim Smith wrote:
> 
> In article <address@hidden>,
>  Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > So?  Why do you think it significant that no stipulation was filed?  If
> > > the prerequisites of 41(a)(1)(A)(i) were met, why would they not use
> > > that section, and make the simpler, smaller, filing?
> >
> > If they've settled, why not roll the agreement into a court order by
> > mutual stipulation akin to
> > <http://petsforum.com/PSW/Docket/Stipulation.htm> (see also
> > http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/gcdltep/related/SettlementAgreement-08-25-06.pdf)?
> >
> > Even wikipedia knows that
> >
> > "Generally, when a settlement is reached in the U.S., it will be
> > submitted to the court to be "rolled into a court order". This is done
> > so that the court which was initially assigned the case may retain
> > jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order as
> > necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches the
> > settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only a
> > civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required
> > by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is
> > not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the
> > settlement."
> 
> What's the point?  Verizon's subcontractor made the source available:

What does that have to do with the lawsuit against Verizon? Actiontec is
not a party to that "settled" lawsuit to begin with. SFLC sued Verizon,
not Actiontec.

> 
>    <http://opensource.actiontec.com/>

The code was made available by Actiontec prior to lawsuit. Yet SFLC sued
Verizon.

> 
> News reports said the settlement also included some money to the BusyBox
> developers.  If all the settlement involved was some money and an
> agreement that the source would be made available, and the money has
> been paid and the source is now available, what is there to potentially
> be breached?  The plaintiffs got all they wanted, so there's nothing
> left for them to ask the court to order.

How about <http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp>, which
SFLC complained about back in December (asking for source code or
"offers to provide such source code" *from Verizon*) and which is still
unchanged?

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]