This West- Love correspondence is getting Kafkaesque.
By my count, she answered only the first of his five questions! And that
was the first one, with a wishy-washy answer. Lots of innuendo and pseudo
answers, though, e.g.. the following:
>I can
> tell you that every firm that has seriously
> requested and pursued a license has received
> one.
Note that this may not be a single one, since she clearly reserves the
right to define "seriously" herself, and not tell us the definition. How
many requested but did not get one, for example? (Because they were "not
serious" or "didn't pursue")
Here's another:
>
> A: Jamie, you know it's not appropriate for me to
> publicly discuss the DOJ RFP during the decision
> making process. Sorry.
Unless she or her company are involved in picking the winners of the RFP,
this strikes me as nonsense. "not appropriate" according to who(m)? West
Publishing, I guess..
Notice that she also does not make any commitment to give more complete
answers to this one after the decision. Not that such a commitment would
have any credibility.
Original header follows:
At 7:01 AM 11/1/94, Dorothy Molstad wrote:
>>From: Dorothy Molstad
>
>To: Jamie Love
>
>RE: Five Questions
>
>DT: October 31, 1994
>
>
>Jamie, here are my responses as promised.
>
>1. Does West claim a copyright to its "interior"
> page numbers from published judicial decisions?
>
> A: West doesn't publish judicial decisions.
> West's reports of judicial decisions,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST