3 ms·

Plaintiffs don't really have any trouble coming up with valuations when they initiate the lawsuit. Their challenge is to make it to the end of the litigation pr

Plaintiffs don't really have any trouble coming up with valuations when they initiate the lawsuit. Their challenge is to make it to the end of the litigation process without having too many digits lopped off their initial number. This case is about the defendant benefiting from unambiguous public information about the market value of the works, since the law provides them with some protection when they make a reasonable settlement offer but are forced to continue litigating instead.

swish_bob 7y ago
It's not really about the offer being made on the basis of public information though, is it. If the eventual settlement is less than the original offer, then the plaintiff is liable for costs that occurred after the point the offer was made. As far as copyright law goes, it seems almost sensible ...
- JoshuaDavid 7y ago
  Does this mean that in the case that you're sued by a copyright troll you can offer to settle for $1 and then if they take it to court and get nothing at all (because they don't actually have a solid case) they're now responsible for all your legal fees as well? Because if so that seems like a good way to deal with copyright trolls, since it makes the risks a bit more symmetric.
  - fastball 7y ago
    I think this only applies if the plaintiff is awarded damages.
- wtallis 7y ago
  > It's not really about the offer being made on the basis of public information though, is it. The fact that it's based on public information puts the valuation's reasonableness on a very strong foundation, and allows the defendant to be far more confident that their offer will actually exceed a fully-litigated award.
- Lutger 7y ago
  > If the eventual settlement is less than the original offer, then the plaintiff is liable for costs... But only if the original offer is reasonable. The basis of public information just makes it easier to support the claim that the offer is in fact reasonable.

swish_bob 7y ago

It's not really about the offer being made on the basis of public information though, is it. If the eventual settlement is less than the original offer, then the plaintiff is liable for costs that occurred after the point the offer was made. As far as copyright law goes, it seems almost sensible ...

JoshuaDavid 7y ago
Does this mean that in the case that you're sued by a copyright troll you can offer to settle for $1 and then if they take it to court and get nothing at all (because they don't actually have a solid case) they're now responsible for all your legal fees as well? Because if so that seems like a good way to deal with copyright trolls, since it makes the risks a bit more symmetric.
- fastball 7y ago
  I think this only applies if the plaintiff is awarded damages.
wtallis 7y ago
> It's not really about the offer being made on the basis of public information though, is it. The fact that it's based on public information puts the valuation's reasonableness on a very strong foundation, and allows the defendant to be far more confident that their offer will actually exceed a fully-litigated award.
Lutger 7y ago
> If the eventual settlement is less than the original offer, then the plaintiff is liable for costs... But only if the original offer is reasonable. The basis of public information just makes it easier to support the claim that the offer is in fact reasonable.