[REAL 1]

First, is there a lawsuit currently pending by SAI against any replica manufacturer?

Second, lets be sure we understand the claim clearly?

Third, lets make sure we are clear on the previous settlement terms.

Then we can talk intelligently about this. Likely we are missing something here.

Further, I see nothing wrong with SPF paying for the license from SAI to receive the status so to speak of being a licensed Shelby replica. Just because SPF doesn't need the "license" from SAI to build replicas doesn't mean they don't value the cache' of being an officially licensed Shelby replica. I doubt there is anything in the previous settlement that would stop such a voluntary deal between two business interests. If others don't want the "license" they don't have to pay for it if you are right on the terms of the previous settlement. Apparently SPF saw value in the "license" and the relationship enough to pay for it. They are smart in my book.

Are you sure the previous settlement incorporated the shape of the Daytona in the terms that were deemed in the public domain?

As far as not owning a SPF or Shelby because you don't like the fact SAI may be suing another replica manufacture and trying to stop them from making a competing product, first if its not a meritorious claim it will lose or be thrown out. If it is he may win and therefore was entitled to relief. Third, this would not be the first time business interests sought injunctions against competitors. It happens all the time.

Let me ask you this. Do you own any equipment or cars manufactured by companies who supported the German war effort in WWII or Japanese companies that manufactured equipment for the Japanese war effort. Why not boycott them?