Re: In summary, digEcor got CRUSHED!

Dear Agoracom Family,

I want to thank all of you for your patience with us over the past 48 hours and apologize for what was admittedly a botched launch of our new site.

As you can see, we have reverted back to the previous version of the site while we address multiple forum functionality flaws that inexplicably made their way into the launch.

To this end:

1.We have identified 8 fundamental but easily fixable flaws that will be corrected in the coming week, so that you can continue to use the forums exactly as you've been accustomed to.

2.Additionally we will also be implementing a couple of design improvements to "tighten up" the look and feel of the forums.

Sincerely,

George et al

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

silversurfer

Rank: President [?]

Points: 29631 [?]

Votes: 155 Score: 3.5 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Follow

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Re: In summary, digEcor got CRUSHED!

in response to

In summary, digEcor got CRUSHED!

by

silversurfer

posted on Mar 13, 2009 09:41PM

1. Court rules California law applies to the 2002 NDA, not Washington law. HUGE win for us! (Doc 324, page 8, last para)

2. Court rules provisions 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the 2002 NDA as invalid. This allows EDIG to compete in IFE. HUGE win for us! (Page 8, last para)

3. Court rules that EDIG did not breach the "Functional Specifications" clause of the 2002 Agreement. (Page 18, para 2)

4. Court rules the "Good Faith Negotiation" clause of the 2002 Agreement as unenforceable. (Page 19, para 1)

5. Court rules that EDIG owes digEcor the purchase price it paid for 1250 Li-on batteries that weren't delivered. (Page 23, para 3)

6. Court rules that both parties are denied judgments in the late delivery of the digEplayer 5500's due to disputed questions of fact and ambiguity in the Purchase Order. (Page 19, para 3)

7. Court rules as moot EDIG's motion for continuance on its claims of misappropriation, tortuous interference and defamation. This is because EDIG has since withdrew its claim of misappropriation and the two parties have engaged in supplemental briefings on the other two claims. (Page 23, last para and page 24, para 1)

8. Court rules against digEcor regarding it's motion to strike EDIG's concordance, but will disregard the third column which contains editorial comments. (Page 24, para 2)