Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 9143288" data-attributes="member: 19857">Thanks for the analysis Snarf.Yeah, so far we only have the "he said" part of the "he said/she said". I have no problem with a declaratory judgment that Netflix is a bunch of poopy-heads (I've said worse) but I do want to read their version of what they think happened. The idea that the things EG alleges are the only possible things Netflix could call a breach of confidentiality don't pass the smell test in that they're so minor and clearly one of them was Netflix approved so how is it even a breach? And the amount of money they were going to pay EG is a pittance - they'll spend more than $37K on the lawsuit - so trying to weasel out because they don't want to spend the money anymore doesn't really pass the smell test either.There's more here. I agree that with only what we see so far it really sounds like the setting bible is the issue, but I don't see Netflix's rationale in breaking the contract and then asserting ownership over it instead of keeping the contract and then asserting ownership of it.</blockquote>