|
Nothing new here, the plaintiffs already made the claim about the Swiss subsidiary being controlled by the parent company.
And no, the court is not going to find that Harlequin should have paid 70%, just because Amazon offered a high payment to self-publishers. That's patently absurd.
You're uncritically swallowing the plaintiffs' claims (and one legal bloggers' analysis) whole. That makes no more sense than accepting Harlequin's motion to dismiss without review or consideration.
Put down the Kool-Aid, kthx.
|