The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2021, 03:54:15 am
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  General UQM Discussion (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  Stardock Litigation Discussion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] Print
Author Topic: Stardock Litigation Discussion  (Read 96267 times)
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3862


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #675 on: July 22, 2021, 09:09:14 pm »

Which communities did they destroy?
Logged
Elestan
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #676 on: July 23, 2021, 01:10:44 am »

...they attempted theft and the destruction of online communities who objected...

Which communities did they destroy?

They did say "attempted", and the legal relief requested in Stardock's legal filings did include an injunction that could have required the UQM project to shut down.  That's enough to count, IMHO.

[EDIT]: Parsed a little more closely, the 'attempted' might be read to apply only to 'theft' and not 'destruction', but that may be a little too pedantic of a parse.  In any event, no actual community destruction occurred.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2021, 01:14:15 am by Elestan » Logged
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3862


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #677 on: August 03, 2021, 05:05:29 am »

Yeah, on second reading it has to apply to both.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!