[PLUG] Conclusion to PDXLUG argument

[Cliff Wells]

On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 15:38, Wil Cooley wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 15:19, Cliff Wells wrote:
> 
> > Point taken.   However, how do you suppose a judge would respond if "The 
> > Beaverton Honda Dealers" sued "Jon Doe, a Beaverton Honda Dealer"?  
> 
> It not terribly clear, especially since "Dealer" is capitalized, which
> makes it seem like it's part of a title and perhaps suggests an
> abbreviated form of "Jon Doe, a member of the Beaverton Honda Dealers". 
> It would probably be open to the decision of the judge.  

And this I think would end up being the crux: the case is *not* clear
cut.  Combine that with the fact that there is little, if anything, that
could be claimed as damages, I doubt a judge would even be willing to
hear the case.  Even if it were heard, the text from the front page of
pdxlug.org makes a *very* clear distinction and goes out of it's way to
send readers to pdxlinux.org if plug is what they're looking for which
would probably satisfy any court.  Now you've set the stage for a
judgement against the plaintiff (and if pdxlug counter-sued, plug might
end up footing pdxlug's legal fees to boot).

But then, as has been pointed out, IANAL, so I think perhaps PLUG should
have at it.

Regards,
Cliff


-- 
Baleful sounds and wild voices ignored
Ill luck disaster the one reward
                              -Bauhaus