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.”
|
