[tzs]

Probably not. We are dealing with a pre-trial motion by the defendant for dismissal. They are just implicitly admitting that plaintiff alleges that defendant used the software without a license, not that they actually did so.

To decide such a motion the court assumes that every fact alleged by the plaintiff is true, and then looks at each charge to see if all the necessary facts to support that charge are covered. If some charge is not covered, then that charge can be dismissed.

So what is happening here, it sounds like, is that the defendant is saying that plaintiff did not allege that defendant signed anything, and the defendant seems to think (for some reason I do not understand...) that you have to sign something in order to have a contract, and so wants the court to dismiss any charges that require there to be contract.

The court said that plaintiff has in fact alleged sufficient facts for there to be a contract, so denied the motion to dismiss.

[nolemurs]

> the defendant seems to think (for some reason I do not understand...) that you have to sign something in order to have a contract

I know, right? I'm really baffled that any lawyer would even try that argument. That's like, first or second week of first semester contract law right there.