Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
settlement_analysis [2019/02/26 21:56] – Carlos Pedraza | settlement_analysis [2019/02/26 22:10] – Carlos Pedraza | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | {{:: | ||
<font 10px/ | <font 10px/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <fs x-small> | ||
====== The Legal Merits of Peters' | ====== The Legal Merits of Peters' | ||
Line 5: | Line 8: | ||
//**Was Axanar’s former director right to refuse to settle Alec Peters lawsuit against him?** // | //**Was Axanar’s former director right to refuse to settle Alec Peters lawsuit against him?** // | ||
- | **Former //Axanar// director Robert Meyer Burnett refused** producer Alec Peters’ settlement offer. Was that a good idea? We asked an attorney in Georgia, the state where Peters wants the suit tried. What he told us: | + | {{TOC}}{{page> |
+ | |||
+ | Former //Axanar// director Robert Meyer Burnett refused producer Alec Peters’ settlement offer. Was that a good idea? We asked an attorney in Georgia, the state where Peters wants the suit tried. What he told us: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{page> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== ' | ||
* **The settlement’s incredibly one-sided.** | * **The settlement’s incredibly one-sided.** | ||
* **It doesn’t actually settle any claims** | * **It doesn’t actually settle any claims** | ||
* **Peters could still sue** even if Burnett abides by everything in the agreement. To put a fine point on it, our consulting attorney says: | * **Peters could still sue** even if Burnett abides by everything in the agreement. To put a fine point on it, our consulting attorney says: | ||
- | —- | ||
- | “It’s bullshit from a settlement perspective, | + | < |
+ | </ | ||
- | ---- | + | ==== A Setup? ==== |
* **Setting Burnett up for another suit**: Peters asks Burnett to acknowledge the existence of what Peters says are loans — $31,550 worth. Under these terms, Peters could go on to sue Burnett later for non-payment and Burnett couldn’t deny the payments were a loan. | * **Setting Burnett up for another suit**: Peters asks Burnett to acknowledge the existence of what Peters says are loans — $31,550 worth. Under these terms, Peters could go on to sue Burnett later for non-payment and Burnett couldn’t deny the payments were a loan. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Losing Copyright ==== | ||
+ | |||
**Giving up copyright**: | **Giving up copyright**: | ||
* **That’s probably worthless**. Burnett’s ownership of work apart from Star Trek intellectual property wouldn’t be released even by this kind of agreement with Peters. | * **That’s probably worthless**. Burnett’s ownership of work apart from Star Trek intellectual property wouldn’t be released even by this kind of agreement with Peters. | ||
Line 23: | Line 35: | ||
* **Were CBS to sue a fan film** | * **Were CBS to sue a fan film** | ||
* **Freedom of speech**: Peters wants to keep Burnett from producing any kind of documentary about Axanar. Freedom of speech would likely protect Burnett, even if he signed the agreement. | * **Freedom of speech**: Peters wants to keep Burnett from producing any kind of documentary about Axanar. Freedom of speech would likely protect Burnett, even if he signed the agreement. | ||
- | **Which state’s law governs?** | + | |
- | * **Why it matters**: | + | ===== Which State’s Law Governs? ===== |
+ | |||
+ | The offer doesn’t say, though the case is being tried in Georgia, but Burnett is a California resident. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Why it Matters ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) are a form of restrictive covenant treated differently by each state. | ||
* **California is very pro-freedom** | * **California is very pro-freedom** | ||
**No time limitation**: | **No time limitation**: | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Stale Information === | ||
+ | |||
* **If what Burnett keeps confidential for Axanar isn’t a true trade secret **Peters may be out of luck. The theory here is that eventually information that isn’t truly a trade secret (like, say, the formula for Coke) — and what about // | * **If what Burnett keeps confidential for Axanar isn’t a true trade secret **Peters may be out of luck. The theory here is that eventually information that isn’t truly a trade secret (like, say, the formula for Coke) — and what about // | ||
* **This agreement literally goes on forever**: Most states’ law doesn’t look favorably on holding someone liable to protect information that isn’t valuable anymore. | * **This agreement literally goes on forever**: Most states’ law doesn’t look favorably on holding someone liable to protect information that isn’t valuable anymore. | ||
- | **Overly | + | |
+ | ===== Overly | ||
+ | |||
+ | Peters is trying to keep Burnett from talking about more than most states’ laws will allow. | ||
* **Proprietary information that isn’t confidential. **Take Axanar’s logo, for example. It’s someone’s property but isn’t confidential. This agreement keeps Burnett from even speaking about the logo. | * **Proprietary information that isn’t confidential. **Take Axanar’s logo, for example. It’s someone’s property but isn’t confidential. This agreement keeps Burnett from even speaking about the logo. | ||
* **Courts don’t like that**. How come? | * **Courts don’t like that**. How come? | ||
Line 35: | Line 59: | ||
**Any ambiguity favors Burnett**. Almost every state construes agreements // | **Any ambiguity favors Burnett**. Almost every state construes agreements // | ||
* **So if there’s any uncertainty** | * **So if there’s any uncertainty** | ||
- | **The bottom line**: No good reason appears to exist for Burnett to have agreed to Peters’ settlement offer. | ||
+ | ===== The Bottom Line ===== | ||
+ | No good reason appears to exist for Burnett to have agreed to Peters’ settlement offer. {{page> |