If the collaboration was a term of her proposed settlement, it doesn’t matter whether or not her business is successful.

Lol, I don’t need any because I have nothing to prove to you; it’s not my case, and you’re not a judge. All I’m saying here is that this is a standard process for getting information from the other side in a lawsuit, there’s nothing nefarious about them asking for her to produce copies of something they’re already…

I didn’t say it was “different and unique,” it isn’t the same though, which is why they reapplied for the trademark.

Maybe not. Trying to force them into a business relationship exchange for the name has given them an opening, that isn’t a particularly reasonable request in a settlement, and a judge might agree.

No one is making you do anything. All causes of action in lawsuits are “allegations,” putting it in all caps doesn’t change that or make what you’re arguing here right. They are going to court to ask each side to produce things they already know exists, this is a standard part of a lawsuit. It’s not as if Beyonce was…

There’s no point in doing any of that if there’s a chance they can trademark the name they’re actually asking for, which this lady doesn’t own.

They probably did. No one owns the trademark for “Blue Ivy Carter.”

She doesn’t own the copyright, she owns the trademark to a name slightly different to the one they are trying to trademark. This lady doesn’t own the trademark for “Blue Ivy Carter,” just to “Blue Ivy.”

This isn’t how discovery works. You wouldn’t ask for something so specific if it did not exist. The Carters are asking for the powerpoint presentation because they know it exists, just like Morales is asking for personal communications about the name, because she knows they exist.

Her offer included forcing them into a working relationship with her, so she could continue making money off them. If she just wanted $10 million she should’ve asked for that and called it a day.

She has “Blue Ivy” trademarked, not “Blue Ivy Carter,” which is what the Carters are trying to trademark. No one is asking her to relinquish anything, they applied to trademark the full name, and she opposed. They applied again, and she opposed again with the caveat that she’d drop her opposition for money and…

She owns the trademark to “Blue Ivy,” not “Blue Ivy Carter,” which is what they were trying to trademark. The Carters never intended to use the name, they wanted to trademark the name to prevent other people from making money off of it, a licensing deal would be of no use to them.

SCOTUS won’t pick it up because they’ve already ruled on it. What’s more is that the cop’s “I didn’t know” defense here doesn’t really hold up, since ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse for breaking it - he violated her rights with this little power trip. And as much as people are giving her shit for winning this…

This is the GOP’s desperate attempt to give Trump a pass while trying to curb emergency powers for future democratic presidents. There are already measures in place for Congress to stop a Presidential Emergency Declaration, problem is, none of these cowards want to be on record for it.

Depends on the school. UC Berkeley and UCLA are the hardest to get into, since they’re top tier schools, and attract people from everywhere, but this also means there’s more of a preference for out-of-state and international students, since they pay more (especially at Berkeley when I went there, I think they’ve…

Not just the schools, also the money-grubbing College Board, who are also technically victims. These people simply didn’t have enough money to donate to the schools directly in a way that would make a difference for their kid(s), you’d need at least $10 million to buy your kid a spot at some of these schools.

You can always tell when they completely disregard or outright ignore someone who perfectly answers whatever dumbass questions they’ve asked.

Well... maybe. You can tell what evidence the Feds have by what kinds of charges have been brought. Since the ringmaster of this whole shebang was charged with “conspiracy to defraud the US,” I imagine this means he was able to register his organization as a non-profit. Meaning all monies he received were legit…

The only reason why I didn’t mention tax fraud is because no one in this case has been charged with it. At least not yet anyway.

Definitely trolling.