That's why I generically quoted you and I understand what you are saying. I've just seen the argument before.
The courts do not decide issues of political policy such as Darfur and violence in the middle east. I'm not sure why this is deemed a waste of time.
If this case has no merit and common sense should prevail, then why all of the legal foot dragging? This could be summarily dismissed on the merits if what the owners are contending is to believed.
I'm of the opinion that Washington could stand to make a one-time windfall with last minute purchases of the old name merch and with the first year of the new. I actually think that ultimately that is what they want (the ownership) and they would like nothing better than to blame someone else for making them do it.
The courts do not decide issues of political policy such as Darfur and violence in the middle east. I'm not sure why this is deemed a waste of time.
If this case has no merit and common sense should prevail, then why all of the legal foot dragging? This could be summarily dismissed on the merits if what the owners are contending is to believed.
I'm of the opinion that Washington could stand to make a one-time windfall with last minute purchases of the old name merch and with the first year of the new. I actually think that ultimately that is what they want (the ownership) and they would like nothing better than to blame someone else for making them do it.