Hi James, i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to or unwilling to move out in the lengthy period given.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Did you read the filings? This is not the customers position. Since I have only the customers filings and the judges TRO online it maybe that NAC has counter claims of their own. However
The customer's unhappy.. but I dont see anything bad going on here..
It is very simple - Plaintiff files a motion. Defendant tries to have it dismissed (or maybe for whatever reason decides that as the network engineers they don't care about what a court has to say and ignores it) Plaintiff shows that he has a case. Defendant is unable to convince a judge that the plaintiff is full Judge grants the TRO. Defendant waves arms on nanog-l. Moral - When a legal system is involved, use the legal system, not the nanog-l. The former provides provides ample of opportunities to deal with the issues, while the later only provides ample of opportunities to do hand waving.
The customer's wording is sloppy for a legal doc and they have silly points raised, like because nac wont accept payment by credit card they are forced to pay off their outstanding balance hence having to pay twice (one to the card one to nac) .. well duh .. thats how it works. Non-portability of IP space is well known, sure, its hard work and I wouldnt wish to do it but its normal - right?
The customer wording happened to be excellent - and TRO is a proof of it. The court does not care about the good of internet and portability/non-portability of IP address space because it is not the case in front of it.
Presumably the judge is unsure and doing what seems to be a sensible option..
Never presume. Always file. Alex