On Dec 23, 2007 3:47 PM, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I doubt if that happened. I suspect the lawyers (not exactly a > group known for risk taking) probably feel they have a good case. > > I think I agree with them. I see no significant difference from a > legal standpoint between passing silly "facts" around on the internet > (which you seem to feel is somehow OK) and publishing them in a book. I'm no expert in the law of defamation, but I recall that humour is a good defense to libel. I'm quite certain that Penguin's legal department would have had a quick look at the thing before publishing, and obviously they were satisfied that there was nothing actionable in the book. As for Chuck's lawyers (and lawyers in general), they don't care if they have a good case, they care if they have a retainer from their client. Lot's of flimsy lawsuits have been filed for reasons ~other than~ that they have a chance of winning in court. Last time I saw Mr. Norris, it was doing an infomercial for an exercise machine. I'm guessing that he'd do almost anything to revive a flagging career. The publicity of a lawsuit could be just what he wants. I agree with Mark. It'll never get to trial. It will settle (and the results of said settlement will never see the light of day - a standard term in any settlement is non-disclosure of terms by either party). cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
