I've been puzzling over ES's comments on the 4 yr clause. He seemed to be letting a lot of air out that balloon during the conference call.

If a judge were to review the cases against maintaining the 4 yr timeline established decades ago, would he/she not update the timeline to a reasonable period (say that described in the +FS)? And, given that new timeline, would it not also present a risk to TCK warranting some interest in taking us out anyways?

There was a self proclaimed lawyer posting here before I went on holidays offering some interpretations on some other issues... (Sorry forgot the name). It would be interesting to her his/her thoughts on how a dated agreement would stand and be updated between two rather non-adversarial parties. Would the old agreement simply be thrown out?, be updated? or stand as written? I would think that the spirt and intent of the agreement would be carried forward in some manner. Opinions welcome

glta.