[Steve Cassani]

Russ,

This will likely tire everyone and bring this thread to an end, but...

The court was correct in its finding that Shelby's delay of three decades from the time he voluntarily went out of business to the date of filing before the court rendered his claim of harm moot. If Shelby was due remedy, why did he endure the harm during a period when all of the laws he cited in his favor were in effect?

Shelby went to considerable length to trace a visible connection between his work and the marketability of vehicles that borrow or repeat features he claimed to own. The court was not pursuaded that some share of the profit others were realizing was due Shelby. The disparity in time between the initiation of manufacture of similar products and the filing before the court led to the conclusion that Shelby waited to claim harm until the potential in profits foregone to him became too attractive to resist. The courts never agree to a claim of harm following considerations of cost-effectiveness.

Over a decade ago a comic book author and printer sued Warner Bros. for copying their original rendition of Casper the Ghost in the advertising for the Ghostbuster films. Their filing was timely, but the court found in favor of Warner Bros. The reason: There are only so many ways to render a ghost and have it recognized as such by the public. Ownership does not adhere to public property and what the author and printer contributed was nothing new and hence not their property. That's how ghosts look.

There is not only one way to shape a sports car and there, I believe, lay the basis of Shelby's claim.