Twitter acct- My assumptions and logic:
(AGAIN- only assumptions, because no of us have seen the employment contracts)

1. Kyle Tucker worked for RT for at least a few years before he established the Twitter acct, and I AM GUESSING that Kyle's agreement had nothing in it regarding Twitter account creation or use, and was never modified regarding any social media. He likely provided services to RT beyond the scope of or in excess of his original agreement with RT when he promoted RT whenever he used Twitter.

2. Kyle likely abandoned his Twitter acct access when he left RT. My guess is that he did not "sell" the acct to RT- "Hey folks, hang in there- a new guy will take over the VT twitter acct." Kyle likely did not sell the acct to Bitter as well, and there was no agreement between Kyle and Bitter discussing it.

3. RT did not include any language regarding social media or twitter in their agreement with Bitter. They likely just didn't see the value of that twitter account in 2011 when they hired Bitter. Unless Bitter's contract somehow included language that said ALL of his work product was owned by RT, then Bitter could own his Twitter acct and take with him- unless, again, his employers, in 2011, had the vision ahead of time that it would be worth $150,000 and told him they wanted it back in the future when he left. Another guess, but I'm sure that didn't happen. A bigger clue to this is that it would take the length of Bitter's employment to again reconstitute an equivalent platform (per what was reported)- not Bitter and Tucker, who originally established the account. My interpretation is that RT is acknowledging ownership of the account specifically to Bitter from the start of his employment through that comment.

In the end, I think it is all for show. RT may possibly be awarded some damages (I doubt it) but likely won't be $150K or whatever. Until Bitter sells his acct or monetizes it somehow, then they can't prove the $150k. My guess is that any award might be $5K if at all. If that happens, then I'd suspect the Athletic might pay for it for Bitter, since Bitter might be making a commission on new subs or something, as part of his employment agreement with the Athletic. This isn't going to be decided by what a fan thinks is fair today- it should be decided according to agreements established in 2011 when RT first employed Bitter and the interpretation of the scope of that agreement.

Final thought- it would be interesting to see what the Athletic thinks about this. If they saw enough $$$ value in keeping his twitter in terms of CPM, then they won't say anything. If they thought that this lawsuit might discredit their brand somehow (as a TV network or newspaper might), then they'd tell Bitter- "hey, forget about it, its not worth it, give it to them." I would expect that all of this was discussed between the Athletic and Bitter before Bitter even left RT, so the Athletic sees value in Bitter maintaining the account. And I wouldn't be surprised if this actually came up with other Athletic writers before Bitter.
[Post edited by reconhokie at 08/08/2018 5:15PM]