Wednesday, August 4, 2010

No more court-ordered settlement talks in Thomas-Rasset case

The judge in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case today granted the parties' joint motion for relief from the court's previous order to participate in settlement talks. A third trial in the peer-to-peer infringement case, which will consider only the issue of damages, remains set for October 4.


  1. Ok, so the Court won't order the parties to settle (because one party refuses to settle for more than $0.00). And, the jury is constrained by the statutory damages statute to award an amount that, whatever it is, the plaintiff will complain is unconstitutional and move for a reduction. But given that the Court can only reduce it to the minimum statutory amount, which the plaintiff has openly stated is still unconstitutional, how can this possibly ever end without an appellate judgment and denial of cert or a Supreme Court judgment?

  2. Oops, please substitute Defendant for Plaintiff in my 3:58pm post. It makes more sense that way.

  3. Two ways: (1) the judge retires and a new judge who does not believe in usurping the role of the jury and Congress replaces the current judge or (2) after yet another whopping jury award comes in after the third trial, the judge again substitutes his own opinion for that of jury via remittur and then finally comes to his senses and permits an interlocutory appeal to end this nonsense and/or the plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus of some sort.


Comments here are moderated. I appreciate substantive comments, whether or not they agree with what I've written. Stay on topic, and be civil. Comments that contain name-calling, personal attacks, or the like will be rejected. If you want to rant about how evil the RIAA and MPAA are, and how entertainment companies' employees and attorneys are bad people, there are plenty of other places for you to go.