Well, you can't win them all. The other day I wrote about Judge Lasnik's ruling that an IP address alone was insufficient to sustain a complaint for direct or contributory copyright infringement. Today, Judge Rice ruled exactly the opposite.
To recap, some of the defendants in the Elf-Man case in Eastern Washington filed the same motion that was filed in the Western Washington Elf-Man case. Actually, Mike Matesky prepared and filed the same motion on behalf of several of his clients who happen to be in both the Eastern and Western Districts.
So now the layperson gets to see how the sausage is made. Two different judges in two districts that sit right next to each other are both presented with the same motion filed against the same complaint by the same plaintiff. One judge grants the motion, the other judge denies most of it.
Why you ask? Who knows!
The point is there is no clear cut answer in litigation. One of the most frustrating things for me when speaking with new clients is that they seem to think the law is cast in stone, unbendable and absolute--all the answers must be clear-cut.
I don't care how well you think you know the facts and the law, I guarantee you cannot predict what a judge or jury will do; I don't care what you read on wikipedia. After all, these are human beings with their own experiences and mindsets. Everyone is different.
So if you call me and ask "what's going to happen with my case," maybe you can understand a little better why the answer is always "I don't know." I can give you an educated guess, but there is no way to know for certain what will happen. In litigation, you just have to accept the uncertainty and roll with it.