[ncdnhc-discuss] .biz lawsuit stalls

[Jonathan Weinberg]

	Actually, neither characterization is correct.  The lawsuit hasn't
stalled, and it certainly hasn't ceased to be meaningful.  What's happened
is this:  Initially, the court issued a "preliminary injunction."  That
is, it issued an order against Neulevel *even though the lawsuit wasn't
over and it hadn't yet rendered a final decision as to who was right*. It
did so on the basis of its tentative determination that (among other
things) plaintiffs were *probably* right.  The court said that plaintiffs
had to post a bond, to cover the potential damage to Neulevel in case the
court later changed its mind.  Plaintiffs failed to come up with all of
the money, so the court dropped the preliminary injunction.  The case now
continues; when it's done, the court will issue its final order.  Since
the court has already decided that plaintiffs are probably right, it's
likely -- though not certain -- that the final order will be in
plaintiffs' favor.

Jon


On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Chris, your posting quotes an online article that, in turn, quotes Reuters.
> Your subject line for this topic is at considerable variance with the 
> contents of the Reuters article.
> In other words:
> >According to rules laid out by Mohr, NeuLevel now is free to distribute 
> >the disputed names.
> Please explain has this text from the article can be characterized as the 
> lawsuit "stalling".
> There is a very big difference between "stalling" and "ceasing to be 
> meaningful".  The latter is a more accurate assessment of the lawsuit's 
> current status.