Aside from the general concept of "contributory" infringement, the facts and circumstances of Sony v. Cox bear no resemblance to the fact-pattern in this dumpster fire.
Sony is attempting to create a seismic shift in the application of IP law by making an ISP responsible for "contributory" infringement by allowing alleged infringers to still access the Internet. I suppose they do kind of come off like Greer, REEEEEEEEing over the fact that they "begged" Cox in some cases "multiple" times to "do something" about those mean "infringers" - you know, as opposed to Sony actually doing something about it under the existing law by going after the infringers themselves.
Comparatively, it sounds ridiculous when you think that a victim of an alleged crime perpetrated by a criminal using a telephone should be allowed to sue the phone company for allowing the criminal to have phone service.
But, according to Sony, the tubes are "different". Recall that, supposedly, "net-'neutrality'" was going to guard against this sort of thing. But nevermind that now.
If you ask me it was a mistake to tie any resolution in this case to Sony.
I agree for the most part with your takes on this. The MtD wasn't strong, for a few reasons, and on a suit that has gone up and come back down, especially with the twists and turns and greer's "gaslighting as a legal theory & tactic," and with
Cox theoretically around the corner, there would be about a 0.001% chance any MtD would have been successful.
Also, even if
Cox did not exist, Barlow is not the kind of lawyer/ judge who likes to lose or be embarrassed. The large firm where he was partner (a while ago) has its roots in the Upper Midwest - yes, folks, Minnesota is/ Minnesotans are stealthily everywhere - and, though it had morphed far beyond that by the time he was a partner there, it still had a flavor of the Upper Midwest version of the patrician lawyer style - upright, correct, and risk-avoidant. That style goes doubly for anyone aiming for the Federal bench. Barlow has a pretty impeccable reputation, and being flatly reversed by a place he probably has or has had sights on almost certainly is not something he wants to repeat. The reversal suggested the appellate court not only thought Barlow was wrong but that the issue needs air time, and I think Barlow is loathe to cut it off at a 12b stage. And Bennett answers to Barlow, but what I did not like about Bennett's recommendation was the tone, which was fairly snide.
I think they also don't want to address Greer's sanctionable conduct for the same reasons, and I don't gave high hopes for a dismissal on those grounds, though Greer has done his level best to give reason to overcome that reticence. And I think silence on all of those filings so far has been to avoid having a record of repeated admonishments, because the more there are, the harder it is not to escalate the penalties. They seem to be trying to walk the line between not letting the case go completely fallow but not getting jammed into indefensible failure to address Greer's lies and misrepresentations. Yes, it's arguable they've not succeeded in balancing on the line and that the time drag is over long and injurious, but they seem to be playing for time.
[And now that I've said that, expect decisions on 27 motions this afternoon so I can be wrong in 27 ways!]
Eta: he was only at Dorsey & Whitney for a year before being called to the bench, and spent most of his career at Sidley (out of Chicago, so same concept).