Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why would the *defendant* ever "apply to this Court by letter before May 21, 2009 for restoration of the action [dismissed WITH PREJUDICE] to the Court's calendar", Hyman? Any ideas? LOL.
I expect that this is the routine language used in such cases. The order was written by the judge, not the parties to the suit.
It says that the defendant has no objection regarding the plaintiff's right to apply for restoration of the dismissed (WITH PREJUDICE) action within a month.
Then the period expired, the settlement was finalized, and the FSF issued a press release. All perfectly routine, and the compliance with the GPL sustained as always. And your attempt to impute some significance to the nature of the dismissal by using scare caps is just another lie by implication on your part, since dismissal with prejudice is perfectly routine in settlements. A recent example: <http://imperialvalleynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5222&Itemid=2> "Terminator Salvation" Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice After Settlement Reached Hollywood, California - Halcyon Co. co-CEOs Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek and producer Moritz Borman announced today that Mr. Borman’s lawsuit against Halcyon has been dismissed with prejudice after the two sides amicably resolved all of the outstanding differences between them related to the upcoming film “Terminator Salvation.” Said Messrs. Borman, Anderson and Kubicek: “We are glad to have these issues behind us so we can focus on working with our filmmakers and our studio partners at Warner Bros and Sony Pictures to give Terminator fans the next amazing installment in this enduring series of films.” _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
