Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle

[amicus_curious]

"Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:E2DBl.724$9t6.558@newsfe10.iad...
> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>
> > "Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3IJAl.118624$Rg3.97495@newsfe17.iad...
> > > On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
> [...]
> > > All it really indicates is that is was likely a term or result of the
> > > settlement.  The underlying reason for the settlement can only be
> > > speculated.
> > YOU can say that, but what would a jury say?  There are a bunch of
> > companies licensing the FAT system already and here is a company who
> > wanted to fight originally who surrendered quickly.  And you want to
> > bank on the infinitessimal probability that it was all a mistake?
>
>
> Err, why would a jury have anything to say about a settlement?  How could
> this settlement ever be introduced as evidence in some other case?  The
> point of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury.
You say that the reason they settled cannot be determined, but it must be 
that TomTom had no confidence in winning and were concerned with minimizing 
their likely loss.  My reference to a jury was in regard to TomTom's certain 
introspection about their chances, not about what a jury would infer from a 
settlement.  The purpose of a settlement is to avoid a verdict not just a 
jury considering the implications of a previous case.  If I am charged with 
some civil issue and pay a settlement, the fact that I paid is evidence that 
I accepted some liability for what I was charged with.  A jury can consider 
that in a subsequent case, it is a matter of public information.