So you think that "King Tutankhamun lost the 2008 presidential election" is a true statement.
No, because he never ran. Duh! Just like I didn't lose it, because I didn't run. How many people did not lose at the most recent lottery because they never bought a ticket? You can't say they lost anything - unlike the losers who bought tickets.
depends on your definition of losing. I see you've chosen - if you don't try, you can't fail. Typical nerd tactic to not try anything out of their comfort zone.
I've had to do plenty of things outside my comfort zone. That's how we learn. A lot of those things I'm now comfortable with.
As for Carly Fiorina, as I said before, the only hope she has of not losing is to not run.
“If we want mainstream and the middle class going and growing again, we’ve got to get small and family-owned businesses going and growing again,” she said.
She has the experience - she made a large business into a much smaller business. It's like "how do you get a million dollars?" "start with 10 million."
Fiorina said she could appeal to voters with a “deep understanding of how the economy actually works, having started as a secretary and become the chief executive of the largest technology company in the world.”
If she's running on that "record", she's dead in the water.
The problem with that point of view is that Arduino SLR for years paid a royalty to Arduino LLC to use the name and logo. The Arduino SLR trademark was the equivalent of a "submarine patent" - one of the partners in the development of Arduino (who also did the manufacturing) filed a trademark application in his own name, before the group filed their trademark application, then waited years to pull this stunt, all the while paying a license fee so as not to tip his hand.
He only did so because Arduino LLC was going to go to a supplier with a much lower cost, so he was going to lose his profits from manufacturing, which are significant because he's selling them at 4x the cost of clones.
The second paragraph makes it clear that the courts haven't "wavered", they've ditched the principle.
More recent cases such as AP Smith Manufacturing Co v. Barlow or Shlensky v. Wrigley suggest that the approach in Dodge no longer represents the law in most states, including Delaware, which regards the balancing of stakeholder interests as within a director's business judgment. Dodge has not been expressly overruled, but ceased to represent the law in most states.
Also, that case never made it to the supreme court, so it never represented the "law of the land" except in Michigan. So, want to try again?
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.
