Re: Wallace's reply brief

2006-08-01 Thread Ferd Burfel
"David Kastrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> By definition a third party is a stranger to a contract. ("It goes >> without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.") (EEOC V. >> Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S.

Re: Wallace's reply brief

2006-08-01 Thread Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Ter, 2006-08-01 às 21:25 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] > > This alone is such a hilarious piece of nonsense. Any copyright > > license applies to all legal recipients of the licensed material. > > void f(const std::string & email_address) { > if (email_addre

Re: Wallace's reply brief

2006-08-01 Thread Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote: [...] > This alone is such a hilarious piece of nonsense. Any copyright > license applies to all legal recipients of the licensed material. void f(const std::string & email_address) { if (email_address == "[EMAIL PROTECTED]") throw A_Real_Idiot("David Kastrup"); .

Re: Wallace's reply brief

2006-08-01 Thread David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > By definition a third party is a stranger to a contract. (“It goes > without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.”) (EEOC V. > Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 294 (2002)). The contract term > that purports to control (without privity) th

Wallace's reply brief (was: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case)

2006-08-01 Thread Alexander Terekhov
i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . ii ARGUMENT ..