by Dwight Meredith
Atrios and Donald Luskin have agreed to a Joint statement. The statement, which Atrios has posted says:
We both regret a series of misunderstandings that have resulted in something that neither of us intended. We have discussed our differences, and both of us are confident that such misunderstandings will not occur again in the future. As a result, Mr. Luskin is retracting his demand letter of October 29, 2003. We congratulate each other on having quickly achieved an amicable resolution. We are both glad to have put this behind us."
Kevin Drum finds the statement both “odd” and “mysterious.”
As someone who has been involved in the resolution of many legal disputes (both with and without resort to litigation), please allow me to translate the “Joint Statement.” Stripped of its negotiated language, the Joint Statement says the following:
Luskin: Man, did I ever screw the pooch? Having a lawyer write the letter threatening suit against Atrios was a stupid mistake. Not only would any such lawsuit be frivolous, but the truck-load of scorn heaped upon me by the blogosphere has decimated whatever small shreds of credibility I may have previously possessed. Therefore, I have decided to fold my cards and cut my losses.Atrios: Okay.
I arrive at that translation by comparing the outcome to the interests of each party. Luskin wanted Atrios to delete this post and its comments. To get what he wanted, he threatened to expose Atrios’ identity and to impose the costs of defending a lawsuit on Atrios.
Atrios, for his part, did not want to remove the post, wanted to protect his identity, and wanted to avoid the expense of winning the lawsuit (I do not believe that there was any realistic chance that Luskin would actually win damages in the suit).
As far as I can tell, Atrios achieved all of his objectives and Luskin achieved none of his. The post and its comments stand. Atrios’ identity remains secret. No suit has been or will be filed.
The technical term for what transpired is “surrender.” Atrios is to be congratulated on his victory and he should also be commended for his graciousness in agreeing to post the “Joint Statement” to allow Luskin to save some small degree of face.
Well-drawn conclusions, although it kinda looked obvious to me.
Posted by: Elayne Riggs at November 6, 2003 04:33 PMI can't help wondering how much the legal costs to Atrios would actually have been, given the fact that he was represented by Sam Heldman, who I somehow can't belive would charge huges fee to Atrios. It would still be costly, as Heldman has to earn a living, but still....
Posted by: Kristjan Wager at November 10, 2003 04:17 AMThe Atrios/Luskin affair is mentioned in an article about Krugman and Luskin in The New Yorker
Posted by: Kristjan Wager at November 10, 2003 05:09 PM