| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
That explains it thenThat explains it thenPosted Jun 21, 2005 1:39 UTC (Tue) by jezlinux (guest, #30577)In reply to: That explains it then by lumbercartel Parent article: Jeff Merkey rides again 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?
(Log in to post comments)
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)
|
|
||||||||||||