Replies to post #38004 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[Cougar6]

I understand now, from Ben, that it was Diac who wanted the change. While I like it less from that perspective (Diac with something up his sleeve vs us being proactive), until I see the pretrial motions, I can only speculate that someone is trying to take us back to the pre-settlement stage or they are trying to get a decoration or clarification about the ownership of the patent pre-settlement. It is really hard to say. But if this were just an contractual case where interference with corporate operations was the ONLY issue, then there would be no need for the change in venue.

[downsideup]

I don't think it is an issue that is in question, as you've pointed out often, recently, the law functions by following the rules in proper procedure... and, if that history is being revisited as it seems it is... then it seems there isn't really even much of a question about the requirement in the rules, to have the court with the proper original jurisdiction be the court that now addresses the continuation or revisiting of those issues in contention that require any re-consideration of the original questions that were addressed in the court in which the case(s) have their / has its origin ?

That seems it is a fairly narrow question of proper judicial procedure that doesn't even really require understanding "the thing" that got it there ?