On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Murphy wrote: >> ============================== CFJ 2019 ============================== >> >> Human Point Two bears the patent title Minister Without >> Portfolio >> >> ======================================================================== > First, nowhere does it say in the rules that ownership of patent titles is > limited to persons. (The rules do imply that patent titles can only be > granted to persons, but do not state that they are lost when an entity > ceases to be a person.) This would mean that, if Human Point Two is the > same entity as was awarded the patent title originally, I would judge that > the statement is true. > > However, Human Point Two is not the same Human Point Two that was awarded > the patent title in the first place. Before the partnership currently known > as Human Point Two formed, I might have judged TRUE if assigned a CFJ with > the same statement as this one, because there would be only one possible > referent for the name (a terminated agreement which was once a contract). > However, there are now two Human Point Twos, and the player is a much more > likely referent than an old terminated agreement. With no qualification in > the statement of the CFJ, then, I rule that "Human Point Two" refers to the > player, who does not bear the patent title Minister without Portfolio, so > I rule FALSE on CFJ 2019. > > -- > ais523 >
I call for an appeal on this judgement with 2 support. Human Point Two is INDEED the same Human Point Two as before. The contract still existed between OscarMeyr and myself and we simply privatly edited it before making it public.
