- Thomas-Rasset is seeking to have the award reduced to zero, on constitutional grounds. She is explicitly forgoing an argument based on common-law remittitur, the means by which the court reduced the second jury's award of $1.92 million down to $54,000. The court's decision on this motion -- which I expect him to grant, at least in part -- will allow one or both sides to appeal immediately to the Eighth Circuit, mercifully sparing all parties a fourth trial.
- The labels are seeking an injunction against further infringement by Thomas-Rasset via peer-to-peer or other means.
- The court told Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson "thanks, but no thanks," rejecting his proposed amicus brief attacking the jury's award. "The proposed brief would not be of assistance to the Court," ruled Chief Judge Michael Davis of the District of Minnesota. " "Not so much as a thank you for the effort," lamented Nesson, adding, ":<("
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Thomas-Rasset: I owe nothing; labels seek injunction; court to Nesson: you're no amicus of mine
Several developments in the case of Jammie Thomas-Rasset following the third jury's award of $1.5 million to the major record labels in their copyright infringement suit: