[ifwp] RE: Who is it that needs trademark protection?

[Richard J. Sexton]

At 02:36 PM 1/18/99 -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>And further, ADR is available now, at the consent of both parties.  Any
>>MANDATED ADR, where neither party can elect not to be a part of the ADR, is a
>>violation of their rights.
>
>>There is no need to mandate ADR, provisions for it exist on our laws already.
>
>The New York Stock Exchange's arbitration system would be an example of
>manadatory ADR held to be constitutional.

Which is fine for the US, but...


--
"That's why there is a Protocol SO.  To decide what the next
number after 16 is." - Dixon (tinc)

__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________