Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[orangequant]

Plurality, plurality... at least two? or at least three? my kingdom for a plurality!
 
Callpod, Inc. v. GN Netcom, Inc., No. 06 C 4961, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2009) (Kendall, J.).
Judge Kendall construed...
“Plurality of participants” meant more than one participant. The parties agreed that plurality meant more than one in relation to headsets, but defendants argued that a plurality of participants was three or more because a conference call generally required more than two participants. The Court, however, noted that having two different definitions of plurality would lead to the odd result of requiring two headsets and three participants.

[patentsusa]

The defendants' argument is creative.  I could even see going along with it if the parties hadn't agreed that plurality only means more than one for headsets.  Sometimes logic prevails, even in court.

[orangequant]

The defendants' argument is creative.  I could even see going along with it if the parties hadn't agreed that plurality only means more than one for headsets.  Sometimes logic prevails, even in court.

yea,  it was heartening to see the clarity.