![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#34 | |
Laconic Loreman
|
Agree or disagree with the Estate's course of action there really is no need to paint the dispute into terms of good people vs. bad people, or winners and losers.
I will not buy or support Dan Brown's books, but can't put my opinion any better than Sardy: Quote:
If I recall correctly, Dan Brown also has some sort of disclaimer on his books about being historical fiction and not meant to be taken as historical fact in any way. Now onto Hilliard = winner, Estate lost! Eh, lawsuits typically start at the most extreme and severe charges as possible. That is the nature of lawsuits, trump up and tack on whatever case you can then let the lawyers reach a settlement. I can't speak for the Estate, but I can't see how it was reasonably believed they'd succeed in the "cease and desist" order. You design lawsuits to punch however hard you can, because most of them end with some sort of compromise and neither party getting all their demands. Same way with criminal charges, the reason you charge someone with a felony such a perjury, along with a misdemeanor like "misleading a federal investigation" is if the perjury charge is dismissed, the misdemeanor charge is much easier to prove and likely returned guilty. In this case the Estate threatened severe action. It appears both parties' lawyers met, settled, and reached a compromise to add a disclaimer. I doubt either party got exactly what they wanted, but they were both happy enough with the settlement to no longer pursue court action. Anyway, that's the nature of lawsuits, you fire out however hard you can and then *hopefully* reach a suitable agreement by all parties. There's no reason to stand up and proclaim any great victory or that the Estate will (and should) stop trying to be such lawsuit-happy bandersnatches.
__________________
Fenris Penguin
Last edited by Boromir88; 06-04-2011 at 11:00 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |