At 7:03 PM -0400 6/13/01, Bob wrote: >> A quick update on the status of Systemics' legal tussle with >> the e-gold group. >> >> Today we filed against the injunction; we have to wait and > >> see what the judge says on Friday. >> >> I can't comment on anything much except the documents that >> are filed in court. Some of these exist in digital form and >> are located at http://www.systemics.com/legal/ . I've only >> put the ones up there that I know are filed and apparently >> priviledged. I forget the legal term, but because they are >> filed and the judge has read them, they are protected from >> slander. >> >> Of course, the cont Kick ass! A court battle. If you read this: http://www.systemics.com/legal/affidavit_BD2.txt Looks to me like your basic "you didn't pay enough" / "we paid already" dispute. You can see e-gold's approach is to try to get the SOURCE code as a resolution to the dispute...pretty much standard practice, and why not, if you can get it? (Scan down to "Alternative to these Requirements:" ... "Alternative to these Requirements:" is legal speak for "what we're really after".) Systemics position is probably "we did everything that was written down that we should". Ah, the courtroom --- scene of the end of a hundred sloppy dot-com-era developer/developee disputes. But ... which venue? Predictions: (*) e-gold will want to keep it more private (court in an offshore jurisdiction? i don't know) (*) one would imagine e-gold has better lawyers, thus, there is no rational reason why they won't win (*) habeus server .... systemics has the server, so they yield a lot of power Personally I am confused as to the issues .. "digi gold" is just an experiment right? (How much is in circulation .. $20 or something?) ----------------------------------------------------------- "Great ventures create great mottos." --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
