___________________________________________________________________________
____
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system. Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____
give me a break; there are enough actual things to argue about without
making them up. No doubt some of the more paranoid on this list can't help
it, but those that have the ability to do so ought to avoid inventing
things to complain about until they run out of real things.
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> OK, document an action by the Board that was a lie or was deceptive in
some
> other way. Because "Fraud must be pled with particularity", be specific
as
Don't know if it rises quite to the level of "dishonest" (although I know
people who would characterize it that way, or spin theories as to why it
reveals dishonesty), but there is something odd and uncomfortable about
the juxtaposition between between the Board resolution on WIPO (a mixture
of endorsement in principle & studied non-endorsement in principle) and
the simultaneous press communique which says that the Board likes the
WIPO principles so much it wishes to expand them to all DN related
commercial disputes.
The combination certainly leaves open the supposition that there were
other resolutions not revealed, or that the resolutions don't express the
Board's true views. A hint not lost on the DNSO's by the way.
--
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot here. <--
