root wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> a) "gained by" does not apply; "gain" is explicitly defined (by the >> fourth paragraph of Rule 2166) as applying only to newly created >> assets. "transferred to" is ambiguous; it is not explicitly >> defined, and a quick check of dictionary.com turns up consistent >> evidence that a transfer must have a source as well as a >> destination; but the state of non-ownership can be interpreted as >> a source (consider the analogy of a boat that travels from >> international waters to a Portuguese harbor). > > I don't think the analogy fits. A boat traveling from international > waters was somewhere else before it was in international waters. > Unless it was constructed there, but even in that unusual situation, > the material, shipwrights, and crew must have come from somewhere > else. > > I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support. If, as the judge > notes, the dictionary consistently defines a term in a single manner, > then an interpretation contrary to that manner would violate Rule 754. > A null is not an entity, and arguing that it is does not excuse an > otherwise unreasonable interpretation.
Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a state of being unowned to a state of being owned by <entity>?
