So I was just talking to our social media person talking about potential stories that could be in the pipeline (we're always trying to anticipate where we can), and we talked a little about what is going on with Axanar.
Now, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a reporter who has covered many court cases (especially the paper aspect) of it for years, so that is what this is all based on. I don't have any other inside information.
But I did mention that Axanar's answer to the complaint was due next week. I know that a lot of people are excited about it, but I'm sure one of the lawyers here will confirm, that answer will typically just be them acknowledging things they claim is true (like that Alec Peters is a resident of California, for instance), and just denying the other accounts. There could be some reasoning in why they are denying those claims ... but many times, you just see a denial.
So it's basically a bunch of numbers (based on the original complaint) that will say "admitted" or "denied."
What might make this interesting is if they file a counter-suit. That might be more of an interesting story next week to come from the answer, and a countersuit would typically come in the answer-phase. I have no idea what they could counter-sue on, but to be honest, I have no idea what would be an effective defense for them on this case, either.
I also mentioned that even after this, it could be quite a while before we go to trial. The only big thing that might happen is that the court rules on the injunction request (expect it to be approved, because that's almost standard in cases like this).
And I'm sure I'm not alone in believing this, but I don't even think it will get to the injunction phase. Have you noticed how quiet everyone has been lately? Even Alec has been quiet, especially during the whole RMB insanity. You've seen a lot of pulling back on a lot of areas. That means either the lawyers told them enough already, or they are knee-deep in settlement talks.
Even one of the attorneys who says she is representing Axanar claimed that settlement is the desirable action. I know that many of us like to jump and say, "That means they were wrong if they are settling!" No ... it really is a business move more often than not, because you can settle far less than what it would cost to drag it out in court, even if you would ultimately win.
However, in this particular case, I would say that a settlement is indeed a loss for Axanar. As was discussed before, the reason why a law firm took this on pro bono, because they feel there could be some benefit to future (or even existing) cases they have. But those benefits would be through victory in a trial, with a jury and/or with a judge. A settlement does nothing for them.
So the fact that settlement seems to be their primary strategy now strongly suggests to me that what the law firm had hoped to gain from this case is no longer a tangible gain. That now, they are just going to do their best to limit the damage to their clients, and get out of this as fast as they can. A settlement would do just that, and only that.
So my prediction is that we will get a boring answer next week, with just "admitted" and "denied," and that maybe in a matter of days or weeks, a settlement is announced.
