gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle


From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:27:35 -0400


"Thufir Hawat" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

"Thufir Hawat" <address@hidden> wrote in message
news:address@hidden
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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]