This bit reads to me as though the judge is likely to eventually allow the subpoena of Singer & Associates to go through. Am I off base? If not, I hope whatever emails got passed back and forth between F&P and this company are nothing too scandalous. Stardock seems to think they must be.

Essentially correct. More specifically that she's narrowly interpreting these privileges means that anything sought to be protected by them must very strictly fall under the relevant criteria required for protection. She isn't going to allow a significant amount of material to be protected here so they'd better have some bloody good arguments if they plan to argue for stuff that might not strictly be covered, because otherwise she probably isn't going to allow them to be protected. Basically they have to show pretty strict adherence to the necessary elements.

But the internet isn't bound by the Declaration of Independence of the United States.

I hate to nitpick, but do you mean the bill of rights? Because even the United States itself isn't bound by the declaration of independence. It has no legal force in the US at all, or anywhere in the world.

You could join their Discord server and private message Schismnavigator or Frogboy there: https://discord.gg/starcontrol

In other news, amended pleadings are due on Monday.  For anyone familiar with litigation, would it be expected to see significant revisions to their earlier filings? Are there any limits to the extent of such revisions?  That is, is there any rule prohibiting a party's earlier briefs from being entirely irrelevant or misleading, allowing them to blindside the opposing parting with their final submission?  Or would a judge slap them down for that and/or give the opposing party an extra chance to revise their arguments to match?

There are circumstances where amended pleadings can allege issues that are 'new' to the pleadings but known to the parties because of discovery, other pretrial proceedings, etc. And California is a jurisdiction that's pretty liberal about pleadings, amendments and supplemental complaints, but I think in this case we're unlikely to see much significantly new added. We'll probably see some revisions, perhaps references to stuff that's occurred since the initial documents, that type of thing. There's also requirements about notice, so in practice you can't really be 'blindsided' even if there was something unusual included in there because you'll generally have several weeks notice.

I also run a Sci Fi discord server if anybody's interested in that. It's not UQM-specific but anyone would be free to discuss it there of course. Let me know if there's any interest and I can post an invite link.

Hey guys, I've been lurking here well over a decade, I used to have an account years ago but long since forgot its details. I've decided to finally sign up again and maybe quit lurking and actually post once in a while.

Check this out: https://twitter.com/draginol/status/1017146417192816641

If you can't access the link or are weird about Twitter, basically I asked him (Brad Wardell, the CEO of Stardock) if Stardock holds the code/assets for SC3. He said yes. So then I asked if there's any plans for a UQM-style release of the code/assets. He said yes as well.

Pretty cool, eh? What sort of projects would people like to see if such a release occurred? UQM remake using SC3 assets? Something else entirely?