I've no dog in the fight Norm so am ambivalent about it all. In general I think we're in agreement that something doesn't seem quite right here, but without spending time translating the judgement in this case and reading all the background to the judgement it's far easier to just conclude that it is indeed complicated and that there's probably a bit of nuance which, if we knew of it, we would all nod and say, "Ahhhh, ok." Or it might be a perverse judgement.

My only real observation is if you copy someones homework at school and get caught then you usually get into trouble. Setting up a business whose success depends on copying someone else's work without their express permission may be considered rash. Doing so without weighing up the likelyhood of getting caught and into trouble and the consequences that may flow from that might also be considered rash.

However, lots of successful businesses take decisions every day which could have positive or negative implications that are far more likely to impact the business than the extremely remote possibility that they may be sued, successfully or otherwise, out of the blue for IP infringement.

And when you say, "I'd argue that the E-Type doesn't belong to Jaguar or anyone now - it actually belongs to "The 60's"," the great thing is that if you're the owner of the company being sued you get to make that argument and any other ones you want.

Anyhow...over and out. I'm off to take the dogs out and make a snowman