Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle

[Thufir Hawat]

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:27:35 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

> "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.

Where's your evidence?  It's just guess work and interpretation.  The 
lack of a statement from TomTom is telling.  No one has posted firsthand 
knowledge about what TomTom was thinking.

>  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.


-Thufir