New Rising Sun: abb3w: As ex-45** should well know, if he didn't get that promise in writing or independently witnessed, it's worth no more than the paper it was printed on.

From article:

"President Trump told Woodward numerous times that the Interviews were to be used by Woodward-and Woodward only-for the sole purpose of accurately quoting President Trump for the 'written word,' i.e., Rage, and not for any other purpose, including providing, marketing, or selling the Interviews to the public, press, or the media, in any way, shape, or form," court documents say.

This makes it sound like they could end up duking it out over proving the existence and substance of an oral contract [fark lawyers? input? This is a thing, right?] and also fighting over the definitions related to "interview".  Maybe there's already a bunch of existing precedent about what constitutes an interview itself versus what is simply quoting an interview as a part of a larger work -- i.e. beyond a literal transcript or recording of an interview, how much editing and commentary is required before it becomes something independent? I don't know how much of 'Rage' is just their conversations and how much is Woodward's commentary and context.

Also, I'm willing to bet that Trump's side is going to argue that for the audio book format, having Trump's voice depict himself has value above and beyond the words themselves, either read by someone else or in writing.  Namely, that by having Trump 'portray' himself in the audio book, listeners are actually getting the interview itself even if it is interspersed with other content.  Arguing that things like how Trump says things, not just what he says, is what makes the audio = interview, while print != interview.

Realistically, I'll bet they're banking on Woodward just settling out of court instead of haggling over all the above and him chalking it up to the cost of doing business with Trump.