Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wow! Just popped back in to check on this. I'd have to agree that it certainly looks like quite the victory for BoK! The article stays up, Nick admits to no wrong-doing, offers no apology AND gets the symbolic payment from Battlefoam. I'm sure Romeo is furious.

I have a question for the legal types -
Does this set any kind of precedent, or would the case have actually had to be heard in court before that can happen? I'm just wondering what (if any) effect this might have going forward if a similar situation were to arise with other companies/podcasters/bloggers.

Tycho wrote:
Does this set any kind of precedent, or would the case have actually had to be heard in court before that can happen?

No legal precedent here.

 Janthkin wrote:

Tycho wrote:
Does this set any kind of precedent, or would the case have actually had to be heard in court before that can happen?

No legal precedent here.

It doesn't set a precedent, but it does show how off the wall and unsubstantiated Battlefoam's claims were. For solid precedent you generally have to have a case decided at the appellate level, generally better in Federal Court than State Court (depending on what you are dealing with of course), and the precedent is stronger in the circuit in which the decision was made, but appellate level decisions are generally given weight outside of the circuit out of which the decision came. Supreme Court decisions are of course the strongest.

Settled case implies that neither side was entirely sure going to the mattresses was the best option.

Now, about this 20% off 4th of July sale...

 gunslingerpro wrote:
Settled case implies that neither side was entirely sure going to the mattresses was the best option.

Now, about this 20% off 4th of July sale...

Settling does not actually mean anything about going to were mattresses are. The innocent party could have agreed to settle because they did not have an interest in being there in the first place (probable). Maybe the case would have uncovered something that the innocent party didn't want known. Maybe blue butt monkeys appeared and told the innocent party to call it.

Either of these is just as likely as your mattress scenario. I, however, am going to the mattress right now. Egyptian cotton sheets are calling my name (WIN! LOVE YA MA!).

Shepherd23 wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:
Settled case implies that neither side was entirely sure going to the mattresses was the best option.

Now, about this 20% off 4th of July sale...

Settling does not actually mean anything about going to were mattresses are. The innocent party could have agreed to settle because they did not have an interest in being there in the first place (probable).

Aren't we saying the same thing?

 gunslingerpro wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:
Settled case implies that neither side was entirely sure going to the mattresses was the best option.

Now, about this 20% off 4th of July sale...

Settling does not actually mean anything about going to were mattresses are. The innocent party could have agreed to settle because they did not have an interest in being there in the first place (probable).

Aren't we saying the same thing?

Not unless you meant something different to what you wrote in your first post.

Assuming I've got my ducks in a row, BoK only went to court proceedings to force BF to put up or shut up regarding the legal threats/demands in the initial C&D letter. From the legal points in this thread and the depositions posted by BoK, they seemed to have backed up all bar one (tattoo guy) of the claims made in the post that kicked all of this off - BF's depositions were mostly from members of staff, and as far as I recall didn't actually seem to refute what BoK claimed with independent witnesses.

If BF's lawyers pointed out to Romeo that if they went to court they were going to get their backside handed to them on a silver platter - as did not seem improbable - leading to a settlement request that nullified the original C&D threat without needing to go to trial, then BoK wins without needing the additional hassle of a trial. This doesn't mean that BoK might not have thought about taking it "to the mattresses", but if you can get what you want without more work, why not go for it?

 Dysartes wrote:
Not unless you meant something different to what you wrote in your first post.

Assuming I've got my ducks in a row, BoK only went to court proceedings to force BF to put up or shut up regarding the legal threats/demands in the initial C&D letter. From the legal points in this thread and the depositions posted by BoK, they seemed to have backed up all bar one (tattoo guy) of the claims made in the post that kicked all of this off - BF's depositions were mostly from members of staff, and as far as I recall didn't actually seem to refute what BoK claimed with independent witnesses.

If BF's lawyers pointed out to Romeo that if they went to court they were going to get their backside handed to them on a silver platter - as did not seem improbable - leading to a settlement request that nullified the original C&D threat without needing to go to trial, then BoK wins without needing the additional hassle of a trial. This doesn't mean that BoK might not have thought about taking it "to the mattresses", but if you can get what you want without more work, why not go for it?

So wait, exactly what I said? It was not the best option for either party. Hence they settled. Why is this confusing?

When we've reached the point where we're arguing with each other about what we said, the thread is probably finished.