G. wrote: > On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2918a >> >> ================= Appeal 2918a (Interest Index = 0) ================== > > REMAND. > > Arguments: if this is to hold, please explain why/how it's reasonable to > make this interpretation. For my own opinion for example, it never > occurred to me that the defendant's interpretation should be the correct > one.
IIRC e misremembered the clause as "spend X ergs to increase your voting power by 2X on some set of proposals", not "on one proposal" (where the set might be "all proposals currently in their voting period" or "all proposals distributed at once" etc.). This would lead em to believe that e only needed to spend 2 ergs (which e did have at the time) rather than 12.
