Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

A lawyers opinion that is actually non biased

2»

Comments

  • btdtbtdt Member RarePosts: 523
    The term you are looking for is impartial... not unbiased.  All lawyers are biased towards their clients... it's their job to be biased.

    Back seat lawyers... you know, the ones who make comments about a case they aren't directly connected to, do not know all the facts, thus instead of being impartial, they are merely misinformed.
     
    The only one that matters to this case is the judge.  This is not a trial by jury, it is a trial by judge.  And the law is very clear, especially when it comes to written contracts.  And this is a case about contracts.

    Keep in mind, Apple and Samsung sue each other almost daily.  Most of those cases never see the light of day.  And even when the case does go against one or the other, it is often never a done deal.  That's why these sort of things go on for years.

    It's also why it really doesn't matter to you, the consumer, it is a matter for the company alone.



    ShodanasOctagon7711
  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,537
    edited January 2018
    Arillix said:
    Yea, here's the thing, Crytek only has so much time left to respond to the MtD.
    If nothing else is heard, it will likely mean they conceded.
    Similar, to the Escapist, and CIG very quietly removing all traces of the event. 
    Actually, both parties only needed to provide one statement (Crytek's initial complaint filing, and CiG's response to that).  After that, any further responses are optional.  Although Crytek will likely respond anyways (the deadline for it is the 19th btw).  Once Crytek optionally responds to CiG's response, CiG then has the option to respond in turn.  And then Crytek, if there's still time, can respond to that.  Although by that point if they're still shooting back and forth at each other before court has even started it'd be the equivalent of a pointless bickering forum thread (not that CiG would mind.  Their original response is treating it like one already, with all those unprofessional pointless things like them trying to tell the judge how to do her job)
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Tiamat64 said:
    Arillix said:
    Yea, here's the thing, Crytek only has so much time left to respond to the MtD.
    If nothing else is heard, it will likely mean they conceded.
    Similar, to the Escapist, and CIG very quietly removing all traces of the event. 
    Actually, both parties only needed to provide one statement (Crytek's initial complaint filing, and CiG's response to that).  After that, any further responses are optional.  Although Crytek will likely respond anyways (the deadline for it is the 19th btw).  Once Crytek optionally responds to CiG's response, CiG then has the option to respond in turn.  And then Crytek, if there's still time, can respond to that.  Although by that point if they're still shooting back and forth at each other before court has even started it'd be the equivalent of a pointless bickering forum thread (not that CiG would mind.  Their original response is treating it like one already, with all those unprofessional pointless things like them trying to tell the judge how to do her job)
    Feb 9 is the court date so Crytek doesn’t have to respond as anything they say can just be brought to the judge and it will be heard there.
  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,537
    edited January 2018
    Kefo said:
    Tiamat64 said:
    Arillix said:
    Yea, here's the thing, Crytek only has so much time left to respond to the MtD.
    If nothing else is heard, it will likely mean they conceded.
    Similar, to the Escapist, and CIG very quietly removing all traces of the event. 
    Actually, both parties only needed to provide one statement (Crytek's initial complaint filing, and CiG's response to that).  After that, any further responses are optional.  Although Crytek will likely respond anyways (the deadline for it is the 19th btw).  Once Crytek optionally responds to CiG's response, CiG then has the option to respond in turn.  And then Crytek, if there's still time, can respond to that.  Although by that point if they're still shooting back and forth at each other before court has even started it'd be the equivalent of a pointless bickering forum thread (not that CiG would mind.  Their original response is treating it like one already, with all those unprofessional pointless things like them trying to tell the judge how to do her job)
    Feb 9 is the court date so Crytek doesn’t have to respond as anything they say can just be brought to the judge and it will be heard there.
    Whoops, I typo'd in a 1 there for some reason.  Yea, it's the 9th, not 19th.

    But yea, TL;DR is that any more responses from here on out are completely optional and unnecessary. 
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,967
    Erillion said:
    Thank you for the link.

    I read this as "we cannot say yet, let's see what additional documents CryTek brings and how the court interprets certain words like exclusively ".

    I like that the author explains certain legal principles which will be guidelines for the court when they read the arguments from both sides. 


    Have fun
    This is pretty much it.  
    KefoMrMelGibson

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

Sign In or Register to comment.