>Given the early nature of the legal conflict, it was clearly inappropriate
for
>Schwimmer to assert that Curry was an infringer and that he (Schwimmer) had
>superior knowledge of the case and that the rest of us should shut up or
go read
>an inaccessible box of materials. If there's any substantive way he can
challenge
>this account, let him speak now or concede that there is more to this case
than
>simple infringement.
>--MM
>
>
Show me in the thread where I said Curry was an infringer.
As an attorney in the case I do have superior knowledge of the facts in the
case than you, for example. All I have challenged in this thread is your
certainty as to what happened. Curry asserted his version, MTV asserted its
version, there were no final finding of facts or law. But you're pretty
damn certain that Curry's version is the absolute truth.
However, what began this thread was my indisputed assertion that Curry
registered mtv.com not in the name of his employer, but in his own name.
OK, you don't have shut up and go read an inaccessible box of materials in
order to make pronouncements on this list. Just admit that unfettered by
facts you speak freely on all topics with certainty.
