QUOTE
Bingo.
More like you fail.
QUOTE
If the Judge granted a motion to dismiss, it's the effect of saying Fox suits has no merits on it's face. Denying it does not mean a jury or a judge would find in favor of Fox at trial or that Fox is or will be the clear winner, only that they have the right to proceed in their suit. The equivalent in a criminal case is called a motion for directed verdict, which will be granted only if the prosecution has provided NO evidence of an element of the offense. It doesn't matter if the evidence is contradicted or weak, it just has to be there. It being denied says nothing about whether the person is guilty or not.
Then tell me how Warner Bros. has a snowballs chance in hell. And btw comparing this to a criminal case is one of the worst comparisons in the history of comparing something.
QUOTE
About the only way the judge could grant the motion is if it were pretty much indisputable that Fox had no rights.
They bought the property 17 years ago and did nothing with it as far as I'm concerned their statue of limitation has run out.
QUOTE
You are also right about the motivation. Why Fox acquired them doesn't really matter alot for purposes of the suit, nor does it matter that Fox sat on their hands. As you said they can do whatever they want with them, so long as it does not the terms under which they were acquired were not violated. If there was nothing in the contract specifying that FOX had to do something otherwise they would be considered lost, then FOX is under no obligation to do anything with them, like it or not.
^Read my previous comment
QUOTE
As you said, they could have purchase the rights from FOX, which is probably what will happen if they settle.
Fox doesn't want to settle they want the movie TERMINATED.
Edited by L, 21 August 2008 - 12:42 AM.