Miso,When a litigant makes an offer that is not accepted, and...

Miso,
When a litigant makes an offer that is not accepted, and the offer turns out to be reasonable compared to the court awarded damages, costs will be awarded against the party. This is how our legal system works. There are good reasons for it, among other things in turning down the offer, the party had acted unreasonable and wasted the court’s time.

In every case going to court a litigant would have been advised of the possibility of costs being awarded against them if they lose the case. And there is absolutely no possibility these morons were not advised of the possibility of cost when the offers were made. If you read carefully what Peter Cook said, he did not say he was not advised of the costs previously. In fact the most absurd thing Peter Cook said about settlement was the significant royalty already received will reduce the final award sum. The case is about a loss of market share. In fact, the significant royalty (~5% market share) helped to prove a larger award. For example if BTA can establish that if GSK had marketed Relenza properly it would have 50% market share, then it would have proven the $60million royalty received should be $600 million. This is the same perverted logic for saying that if not for the court case BTA would have made a profit in 2008.

There is no point going over the past. Other than a few BTA stooges here, most readers here are convinced Peter Cook is a moron. So what? He was showered and continue to be showered with LTIOs.