[Goose]

I now think less highly of Dawkins. Just one fan's opinion, and probably not worth much, but it's the truth.  :(

I don't. If Stanford did in fact agree to nullify the compensation clause and then in fact attempted to enforce it, I think less of Stanford (the corporate entity, not the "University"). Now, Stanford may say that they made no such agreement, and that is what the courts are for, to decide who is correct. One may say that Stanford was not obligated to make such an agreement, and I would agree. But if they did, they should honor their word. It wouldn't be the first time two parties have disagreed about what happened. I just hope Dawkins has it in writing.

[Goose]

I now think less highly of Dawkins. Just one fan's opinion, and probably not worth much, but it's the truth.  :(

I don't. If Stanford did in fact agree to nullify the compensation clause and then in fact attempted to enforce it, I think less of Stanford (the corporate entity, not the "University"). Now, Stanford may say that they made no such agreement, and that is what the courts are for, to decide who is correct. One may say that Stanford was not obligated to make such an agreement, and I would agree. But if they did, they should honor their word. It wouldn't be the first time two parties have disagreed about what happened. I just hope Dawkins has it in writing.