"
REVEALED: Dominion/Smartmatic ‘Noncompete’ Agreement Emerges Despite Claims Of Being ‘Fierce Competitors’DESPITE THE INSISTENCE BETWEEN DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS AND SMARTMATIC – TWO OF THE TECH FIRMS EMBROILED IN ELECTION GLITCH ALLEGATIONS – THAT THE PAIR ARE “FIERCE COMPETITORS,” COURT DOCUMENTS ANALYZED BY THE NATIONAL PULSE ACTUALLY REVEAL THE PAIR ACTUALLY HAVE A “NONCOMPETITION” AGREEMENT.
According to the summary of law firm Potter Anderson Corroon, in 2009, Dominion was a defendant in a 2009 suit against Smartmatic:
“The license agreement contained a noncompetition provision, which, among other things, prohibited Smartmatic from “develop[ing], market[ing] or sell[ing] any Licensed Product in the United States.”
In other words, it would be illegal for the two firms to compete – a direct contradiction with the claims by the firms as well as by media organizations as allegations of fraud swirl.
As a follow-up lawsuit notes: “the agreement’s noncompetition provision prohibited the plaintiffs from selling the licensed products in the United States.”
This unearthed ruling discredits Dominion’s insistence it is a “fierce competitor ...."
REVEALED: Dominion/Smartmatic ‘Noncompete’ Agreement Emerges Despite Claims Of Being ‘Fierce Competitors’DESPITE THE INSISTENCE BETWEEN DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS AND SMARTMATIC – TWO OF THE TECH FIRMS EMBROILED IN ELECTION GLITCH ALLEGATIONS – THAT THE PAIR ARE “FIERCE COMPETITORS,” COURT DOCUMENTS ANALYZED BY THE NATIONAL PULSE ACTUALLY REVEAL THE PAIR ACTUALLY HAVE A “NONCOMPETITION” AGREEMENT.
According to the summary of law firm Potter Anderson Corroon, in 2009, Dominion was a defendant in a 2009 suit against Smartmatic:
“The license agreement contained a noncompetition provision, which, among other things, prohibited Smartmatic from “develop[ing], market[ing] or sell[ing] any Licensed Product in the United States.”
In other words, it would be illegal for the two firms to compete – a direct contradiction with the claims by the firms as well as by media organizations as allegations of fraud swirl.
As a follow-up lawsuit notes: “the agreement’s noncompetition provision prohibited the plaintiffs from selling the licensed products in the United States.”
This unearthed ruling discredits Dominion’s insistence it is a “fierce competitor ...."
Comment