Alan Mackenzie wrote:
John Hasler <[email protected]> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie writes:
This news is particularly welcome here, since it makes it that
much harder for those with unconventional modes of thinking to
distort the reality in the mailing list.
You would think so, wouldn't you? Soon enough we'll be told that
the judge was drunk or some such nonsense.
Look's like I was wrong, for once. It took Rjack "I won't admit to
being a lawyer" sadly little time to post what he would have liked
to happen as though it had actually happened.
Ahhhh... What actually happened? Were you a neutral witness to the
"settlement agreement" between Cisco and FSF? Perhaps you have read a
signed and docketed copy of the settlement agreement?
When there is no docketed settlement agreement and the plaintiff
dismisses his case WITH PREDJUDICE, then you think the plaintiff is
entitled to his unchallenged version of success?
"Capitulation or settlement is the practical equivalent of success.
Surrender by the plaintiff should be treated similarly." Szabo Food
Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1081 (7th Cir. 1987).
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
