In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So? Why do you think it significant that no stipulation was filed? If > > the prerequisites of 41(a)(1)(A)(i) were met, why would they not use > > that section, and make the simpler, smaller, filing? > > If they've settled, why not roll the agreement into a court order by > mutual stipulation akin to > <http://petsforum.com/PSW/Docket/Stipulation.htm> (see also > http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/gcdltep/related/SettlementAgreement-08-25-06.pdf)? > > Even wikipedia knows that > > "Generally, when a settlement is reached in the U.S., it will be > submitted to the court to be "rolled into a court order". This is done > so that the court which was initially assigned the case may retain > jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order as > necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches the > settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only a > civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required > by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is > not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the > settlement."
What's the point? Verizon's subcontractor made the source available: <http://opensource.actiontec.com/> News reports said the settlement also included some money to the BusyBox developers. If all the settlement involved was some money and an agreement that the source would be made available, and the money has been paid and the source is now available, what is there to potentially be breached? The plaintiffs got all they wanted, so there's nothing left for them to ask the court to order. -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
