5 ms·
I was under the impression that settling after the judgment makes sense when the plaintiff knows for a fact that the defendant cannot possibly pay off his debt
by mirkules 14y ago
I was under the impression that settling after the judgment makes sense when the plaintiff knows for a fact that the defendant cannot possibly pay off his debt in his lifetime. I could be wrong, but I believe this is done because a) they want to extract the biggest amount possible in the shortest amount of time and b) because it sets a precedent for future cases
- tedunangst 14y agoSettlements never set precedent. If the judgment is bigger (which would be just about always), they're already extracting the biggest amount. "We'll take what you have now, plus what you get later" is more than "We'll settle for what you have now." Anyway, I don't think the RIAA's litigation strategy has ever been about maximizing profits.