[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Settlements

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Settlements
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:04:47 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0

On 2/26/2010 4:12 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court.
Moving targets once again, silly Hyman?

No. You are trying to make something out of the lawyers in the
Perfect 10 case having advised the court of the settlement. But
there is nothing to make of that - the reason for this was only
that there was a hearing scheduled and they settled too late to
file papers canceling it. So everybody showed up in court and
told the judge that they had settled. If they had settled a
little earlier, the plaintiffs would have just filed the
settlement and that would be that.

Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference and motions.
But in the current case defendants seem to be willing to call the SFLC's
bluff in court.

It is not a bluff. It is a clear case of copyright infringement.
As to the disposition of the case, we'll see. I expect that it
will go like all the others.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]