Replies to post #15175 on Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[Tinkerer]

Moderators,

Would one of you please "sticky" the previous post by Markmanrunup. Both his top ten reasons and his previous post deserve to be stickied as they are invaluable information for WDDD investors.

[robbindabank]

Excellent thank you

[d442125]

Thnks very much for your sharing this.
d

[LOL]

Why would collateral estoppel apply to other defendants?

Collateral estoppel cases raise constitutional due process problems, particularly when it is applied to a party that did not participate in the original suit. Due process mandates that collateral estoppel not be applied to a party that has not actually litigated the issue in dispute, unless that party is in legal privity to a party that did actually litigate it. In other words, every disputant is entitled to a day in court and cannot ordinarily be bound by the negative result of another disputant's suit, even if that other disputant had exactly the same legal and factual arguments

and

USC 35 states:

Whenever a mistake in a patent, incurred through the fault of the Patent and Trademark Office, is clearly disclosed by the records of the Office, the Director may issue a certificate of correction stating the fact and nature of such mistake, under seal, without charge, to be recorded in the records of patents. A printed copy thereof shall be attached to each printed copy of the patent, and such certificate shall be considered as part of the original patent. Every such patent, together with such certificate, shall have the same effect and operation in law on the trial of actions for causes thereafter arising as if the same had been originally issued in such corrected form. The Director may issue a corrected patent without charge in lieu of and with like effect as a certificate of correction.

Meaning, any trial of actions arising after the COC would act as if it was always that way. It doesn't say shall have the same effect and operation in law for causes thereafter arising, it says shall have the same effect and operation in law 'on the trial of actions for causes' thereafter arising. Even if you read Activisions motions and replys, their argument is that the COC comes after the start of litigation and not before.IMO