Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophon
In this case, I think he won because: - He was right -- they did rip off his work.
- His case was strong enough for a good law firm to take it on contingency. Thus, he didn't have to front any money for the lawsuit. Rather, the law firm covered their own expenses because they had a strong expectation of collecting their contingency fee (typically 30% of the collected amount, although it can vary).
- The potential size of the judgement (if successful) was large enough to get that law firm's attention. Probably wouldn't have worked if the lawsuit was only trying to recover a few tens of thousands of dollars.
I'm only guessing about these issues, but these seem to be likely factors.
Xenophon
|
And also he was A.E. van Vogt, a not incosiderable giant within the field. I doubt very much that internet-writer number six million and one (i'm six millionth) would have even been listened to.