[elmariachi]

Just to clarify my prior royalty comment I made:

- Notice I separated Shelby's property (as is defined by the law or in this case the outcome of the lawsuit) from the Cobra, for obvious reasons. In the case of the Cobra it has been decided by the courts that the body design is not distinct, thus he is not due a royalty. Unless you market it as a "Shelby" Cobra replica, in which case I suppose he will sue.

- I also wrote either a royalty OR consent.

I am not suggesting that you and I mail a royalty for our cars to Carroll Shelby. What I am offering for discussion with respect to the lawsuit is manufacturers in this sport need to be sure they are 100% square before they start producing rather than after. Anytime you go into business and you use a design or property of another (Shelby, Ford or otherwise) you should expect that if you fail to acknowledge the creator (via a royalty or via consent) you have opened yourself up for litigation. If you create derivative works (meaning you derive your product from that belonging to another) then you have an even bigger issue on your hands that could involve theft of an existing design. Either way, you have the choice of resolving it up front or resolving it after the fact. The latter is always more expensive, just ask Microsoft. Again, I do know the full history of Shelby's actions and comments as they pertain to his claims of ownership.

I do have a dog in this fight because I have invested in a replica and may invest in a business related to this hobby. But if we all have to live in fear of lawsuits from Shelby, then replica ownership may be the extent of it for me.