| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
There he goes againThere he goes againPosted Jun 20, 2005 6:41 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: And here he is by jmerkey Parent article: Jeff Merkey rides again This only goes to show that your powers of "oberservation" are not what they used to be. I'm a nobody so happy to be a nobody that he envies nobody else. But if I had to start feeling envy, I would choose people who are well known for their accomplishments, not for their weirdness. As to being a parrot: I read the story about kernel rights on Groklaw when it came out, months ago, but the reasoning (however poor) is mine. Maybe you should appreciate the fact that all third parties independently arrive to the same conclusions, different from yours. It is called "being wrong".
(Log in to post comments)
There he goes again Posted Jun 20, 2005 16:35 UTC (Mon) by jmerkey (guest, #30549) [Link] I accept the fact you are ignorant and misinformed. You need to be certain about your facts before commenting. Quoting from a ruling in a PRELIMINARY proceeding without tkaing into account the FINAL ADJUDICATION of a case can still be libel, and does not protect you in your statements. The intent of Groklaw was clearly to create exactly the beliefs you are stating.
Check out MerkeyLaw later today -- you are in for a real eye opener, and I would expect an apology from you following the posting.
Jeff
There he goes again Posted Jun 20, 2005 16:56 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Now you are mixing answers, I did not quote any preliminary ruling or whatever. But thanks anyway for the free legal advice.Check out MerkeyLaw later today -- you are in for a real eye opener, and I would expect an apology from you following the posting.I'm not holding my breath. Anyway, it is a boring day -- I could use another laugh. Just remember not to hold your breath, either; I don't want to get sued for lack of oxygen in the blood and subsequent damages.
There he goes again Posted Jun 20, 2005 22:11 UTC (Mon) by beast (subscriber, #227) [Link] Any chance that you could add more John Does? I'd like to be John Doe #666.
There he goes again Posted Jun 20, 2005 23:12 UTC (Mon) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link] June 21st, 1:10 AM CEST, nothing new on merkeylaw...
There he goes again Posted Jun 20, 2005 23:55 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Yeah, I know. I just got back from work, expecting the entertainment he promised to deliver... and NOTHING! :-(
Can I sue Jeff for fraud, or something like that? I know I'm not the only one in this position. Could we maybe go with a class action or something?
It was a really big disappointment. Perhaps we should claim mental cruelty. ;-)
There he goes again Posted Jun 21, 2005 5:04 UTC (Tue) by jmerkey (guest, #30549) [Link] Sorry, I had to go out with some law enforcement folks to Nebo this afternoon over the Mooney lawsuit in Federal Court and try to find him in Lodepole canyon, so I wasn't able to get down to Salt Lake to File the complaint.
I'll do it tommorrow when things slow down a bit.
There he goes again Posted Dec 23, 2005 2:09 UTC (Fri) by arafel (subscriber, #18557) [Link] I still see nothing resembling resembling any kind of legal stuff on merkeylaw.com - some paranoid ramblings and whois dumps, but that's about it. What happened to all the content you were going to post?
That explains it then Posted Jun 20, 2005 23:22 UTC (Mon) by lumbercartel (guest, #30575) [Link] Quoting from a ruling in a PRELIMINARY proceeding without tkaing into account the FINAL ADJUDICATION of a case can still be libel, and does not protect you in your statements.By George, I think you've got it! The result isn't final because the Judge is going to have to recuse himself because you're suing him for libel for the things he wrote? I can see a legal growth industry here. Have you filed for a business-method patent on this idea?
That explains it then Posted Jun 21, 2005 1:39 UTC (Tue) by jezlinux (guest, #30577) [Link] Quoting from a ruling in a PRELIMINARY proceeding without tkaing into account the FINAL ADJUDICATION of a case can still be libel, and does not protect you in your statements.That may or may not be true in general, but in this specific case it is irrelevant - since the case in question was settled before the judge was able to issue a final ruling. See http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/1998/08/pr98100.html for a press release about the settlement, with a quote from Jeff Merkey. Has it occurred to Mr Merkey that his failure to mention this inconvenient yet obviously important fact may have been the sort of thing the judge was talking about?
That explains it then Posted Jun 21, 2005 5:07 UTC (Tue) by jmerkey (guest, #30549) [Link] The press release was written by Novell and sent out -- we sent out another press release refuting it's contents. They [Novell's attorneys] substituted the words "our ideads" with "elements" right before the release was sent out. That release is posted on PRNewswire under TRG. GO find that one and read it as our correction to Novell's release.
That explains little then Posted Jun 22, 2005 2:20 UTC (Wed) by NilsR (subscriber, #30603) [Link] Couldn't find "your release", but this is interesting... Maybe Robert MacMillan is a Merkey-hater too, seeing how he cites Merkey as saying: "We didn't really understand trade secret law when the suit began," Merkey admitted. "I mistakenly believed that, because we had developed certain technology while employed by Novell, we could take elements of that technology with us when we left. We have learned that the law does not work that way." (My bold)
Blatant lies already Posted Jul 2, 2005 19:46 UTC (Sat) by LittleLebowski (guest, #30794) [Link] I like how Merkey disavows himself of peyote though a simple Google search of Merkey and peyote yields countless posts by him on the subject. Anyone who claims Slashdot is BOTH right wing and socialist is a little confused as well. This guy has some serious issues here and I wonder if anyone's ever going to help him? I particulary enjoyed the ruling where a judge made comment on Merkey; here's the text:In one message, he makes reference to a lawsuit Novell won against him, and that caught my attention, naturally. The name of the case, assuming it is the same individual, turns out to be Novell v. Timpanogos Research Group, Inc., and in his 1998 ruling, the judge mentions a Merkey-Microsoft connection. Note especially paragraph 158, where the judge highlights Mr. Merkey's signing off his emails to Microsoft "Your Loyal Servant". He was trying to do some business with Microsoft at the time. The judge had a few descriptive words for Mr. Merkey, as you will note particularly in paragraph 123 - 125 of the Findings of Fact: 123. Major testified that even though he has such a close business relationship with Merkey, he has to filter what Merkey says to find the truth, he is unable to control Merkey, Merkey is able to create his own reality which may have no basis in fact, and Merkey is prone to exaggeration. 124. In fact, however, Merkey is not just prone to exaggeration, he also is and can be deceptive, not only to his adversaries, but also to his own partners, his business associates and to the court. He deliberately describes his own, separate reality. 125. Major acknowledges that Merkey does not see boundaries; that if he feels strongly or wants to do something, he does it.
|
|
||||||||||||