IANAL either, but my understanding is this: RH didn't actually purchase an asset of any sort, what they paid for is a limited license to copyrighted material. T

IANAL either, but my understanding is this: RH didn't actually purchase an asset of any sort, what they paid for is a limited license to copyrighted material. The distinction between owning an asset and licensing one results in them actually not having anything, valueless or otherwise. Getting a license is different than owning an asset because you don't own anything, but rather someone gives you permission to make use of an asset that they own (or have control over). The only right that the license covered, was the right to sue people infringing on the copyright. The finding in court was that you cannot license just this right and no others. Thus, RH never really obtained this right. So, in total, RH does in fact have nothing: they never had an asset of any sort, and the right that they attempted to obtain by licensing was determined not obtainable by licensing. The only thing they they attempted to obtain was the legal permission to utilize that asset; having found that permission is non-transferable, they have nothing at all.