Settlements aren't legal precedents, they wouldn't be binding, or likely even given any consideration were it taken to court.

Not only is a settlement not legally binding, but even a court ruling would not be binding unless it came from a higher court and was on an issue being dealt with in the future case.

If say, NCSoft lost at the trial level, they would still have to sue Blizzard all over again. And if they didn't sue Blizzard in the same district... even a ruling from a higher court wouldn't count.

Lets say NCSoft loses in Court X. If Blizzard later gets dragged into court X, they simply respond that they didn't get a chance to argue their own defense, and so that prior ruling doesn't apply to them.

If Blizzard gets sued in Court 'W', underneath X, because X was an appeal, then -maybe- there is a precedent, and maybe not... :)

If Blizzard gets sued in court '9' - in a different federal district or a different state, Court X's opinion is meaningless as anything more than 'one guy on the street's educated guess.'

If Blizzard later appeals court '9' and ends up in court 'Y' (above both 9 and X), then whatever happens there might revise both X and 9... :)

So why sue the little guy first?
1. Some judges like listening to that 'guy on the street' when (s)he's another judge.
2. It tests the waters.
3. If all you want is cash, a settlement is easier to get from the little guy, and then you can take you're loot and ghetto-hearth yourself out of the system...

I stand very corrected, thanks for the explanations.

rofl

take the loot and ghetto hearth

worlds.com would then be considered loot ninjas and nobody would allow them in their instances anymore.