Unfortunately, your post is exactly on point.  

Similar to how the OP made an utterly baseless statement without support.  Those things can but are in no way necessarily true.  

Deep pull.  Nice. 

Jesus.  I’m so sorry.  

Oh my god.  I’m so fucking sorry.  

I’m so sorry for your loss.  

I’m sorry for your loss. Lost mine in ‘17 and it is still as fresh as can be.

Yep.  This.  Scary as shit.  

Not saying she isn’t, but fighting this would have cost close to the same amount, after which she most likely would have lost, and possibly could have been tagged with a potentially higher judgement.

Everyone knows the most effective IP litigation tactic is farts.

lol well played

Nah, don’t worry about that.  There was no legal precedent actually set here, as the case was effectively settled.  You need an opinion, decision, or other type of order issued by a judge to create precedent.  

Solid burn.  Not fully deserved, but good enough that the judges are OK with it.  

Michael, I think your concerns are well-founded insofar as he would if he could. But I don’t think he can, as others have pointed out more eloquently.

And I mean really, who among us does not enjoy a leaky hummer once in a while, amirite?

Literally had the same thought.

I doubt it. That stock has had a long uptrend. I imagine the shareholders are just fine.   

“Are any of these apps ever going to take you to court for using a fake name? Probably not, but it’s 2020 so I don’t put anything past anyone anymore.”

Nothing unconstitutional about that!

Bravo, sir.