Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > John Hasler <j...@dhh.gt.org> wrote: > > Alan Mackenzie writes: > >> I believe you're wrong here, too. It just sounds absurd. Judges and > >> lawyers are only trained to operate under their own respective legal > >> systems. Please back up your assertion with something solid, say > >> examples. > > > SCO. > > Answering reasonable questions with meaningless obscenities isn't > helpful. You can do better than this.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786#ref6 "Utah courts apply the "most significant relationship" analysis described in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971) to determine the choice of law in contract and other cases. See Waddows v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 54 P.3d 1054, 1059 (Utah 2002). On this motion, however, the Court need not reach the choice of law issue because Utah law and New York law are in accord on the issues that must be reached to address SCO's sole argument on this motion, namely, that SCO did not breach the GPL. Throughout this brief, IBM cites to both Utah law and New York law. " regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
