Talk:Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.

Untitled
This stub was pasted from the fair use page to follow the the structure established in list of leading legal cases in copyright law, i.e. to link back to fair use. Alex756

Name
Actually it is spelled SunTrust not Suntrust and that is how they have it registered as a federal trademark. Can someone please fix this. 138.89.189.56 15:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This stub is contentious, not neutral, to the extent that it claims that settlement was motivated by both District Court and Appeals Court findings of substantial copying. Of the copying, the Appeals Court stated:

"There are numerous instances in which TWDG appropriates elements of GWTW and then transforms them for the purpose of commentary."

This is precisely the opposite of a finding that would spur settlement. Objectively speaking, what would have encouraged settlement for Houghton was the prospect of a remand, which could drag on and involve unknown costs, and the possibility of further subsequent appeals, especially considering that the District Court ruled against the defense in the first instance. For Sun Trust it would have been to avoid losing both monetarily as well as legally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laslawyer (talk • contribs) 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)