'If I were accused of doing something I didn't do, I'd fight all the way to the end!' and/or there's an assumption that an attempt to settle the case by the defendants means they're somehow liable. i get it.

we saw those reactions when MJ settled that first lawsuit filed by a kid's parents who claimed MJ had diddled their youngin. i too assumed that must've meant Mike did it b/c if he hadn't done it i assumed he'd fight all the way to the end. i later learned MJ claimed he hadn't diddled the kid but he decided it was cheaper to pay the kid's parents off than to defend the suit. also by settling he avoided going through a lengthy, probing, potentially embarrassing discovery process, where parts of his life that may have no relevance to the boy's parent's claims may be probed on the record (b/c they MIGHT be relevant...plaintiff's counsel doesn't know until those areas/issues are probed via deposition testimony and written interrogatories and document requests). i didn't get it then but i get it now. still, that settlement damaged MJ's public image. so the next time he faced one of those suits he went ahead and spent the $ and went through discovery and fought to the end - and he won. still, he lost $ and time defending that suit instead of just paying to make it go away.

Thicke 'nem made a similar proposal here - the amount they offered the Gayes was undoubtedly much less $ than the Gayes would seek in a lawsuit. it was less than Thicke 'nem would be ordered to pay by a court if they lost the suit. it was less or about the amount Thicke 'nem expected to pay attorneys to defend the potential suit. if the Gayes accepted, Thicke 'nem wouldn't face a suit, wouldn't have to pay lawyers and wouldn't have to go through that lengthy (yrs long) discovery process w/the potential for their private and professional lives to be aired out on the record. not that they had anything to hide necessarily but that they didn't feel like being bothered dealing w/all of that when they did nothing wrong (from their standpoint). they thought it made more sense to just pay a relatively small amount of $ to be done w/the entire nuisance that would be the Gaye's lawsuit.

it's not about principle it's about practicality.

i say this b/c i've represented plaintiffs and had to work w/them when defendants have offered a settlement before i'd filed a suit on their behalf. i've had to explain what's going on and why i feel the plaintiff should or shouldn't take the money. i learned this from very seasoned attorneys who've observed it after dozens of yrs of practice. i didn't just make this up.

still, i get your stance. i felt the same way before i became a pro.

*shrugs*