Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well obviously I’m speculating out of my ASSets, but legal discovery goes beyond “show us the contract.” They get to grill the lawyers and managers who drafted the contracts, review emails written about the contracts, and so forth. they ought to get a look at just about everything that might come up as evidence in a suit.

So I don’t know for sure whether they know what’s in the contract, but I would not say that just because they’re asking for discovery, therefore they have no idea what the contract says.



That's true but at the very least it suggests a weakness in what they have in place at the moment.

And what's written in the contract certainly can't be contradicted by anything before it. At best they're going to be able to fill in the gaps.

EDIT: I am also not a lawyer but this seems to be relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule

Essentially where something exists in the contract in writing it can't be amended or contradicted by any other source.

What other material can be used for is to prove / disprove validity, provide clarification around ambiguity and so on.

That would seem to suggest that Lodsys at the very least aren't confident that the contract as written completely supports their case.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: