NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 8890643" data-attributes="member: 20741">I know. I saw it. I read it. She provided no particulars.She also worked for a time as an IP lawyer. But yes, when you are on for the EFF, you are a civil rights attorney pre-occupied with freedom of expression. There was no misstatement.I didn't say this arises only in the context of an injunction now - you did.  This evidence goes to the merits in interpreting whether OGL 1.0a is revocable - and arises in the context of what the parties understood the agreement to mean, what they said about it, and how they conducted themselves under it. Where there is ambiguity, that's relevant evidence.  I wasn't framing this in terms of relying on an estoppel argument, but on the interpretation of the meaning of the agreement as the parties intended and understood it. You certainly could do so though, but the remedy estoppel supports (and your future rights under it) are of course very different and are less than any litigant would prefer. I have mentioned that here above, already. This is sounding less collegial at this point in your reply. Perhaps you should step away for a bit?The intervention would arise on the basis mentioned in the sentence you seemed to have ignored, which was presupposed on some declaration being sought under an identical contract in which the parties are each interested -- and upon which the parties each rely. The right to intervene is discretionary, sure, but arises under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on motion to the court. This is getting tedious. I don't think we are being as collegial now as we could choose to be. Fair?As I have mentioned previously, ~98% of all civil cases are resolved shy of trial. The numbers which go to trial may change and vary a bit from region to region, year to year, and subject matter to subject matter, but the number is exceedingly LOW. No argument.  I was making a different point immediately above, in any event. Perhaps we were talking at cross-purposes, but we know where we are now. Which is what I said -- and do say. She didn't discuss it with any particulars at all. I cannot believe that she was aware of those specific things, given what she wrote.</blockquote>

Verification