So, this isn't a justification of Glock's ludicrous bribery-based sales model or even their schizophrenic Horse Performance centre which knowingly sold a magnificent dressage horse into what was essentially torture at the hands of the Rath family, but do we actually believe that Glock had no legitimate claim to damages from the airsoft industry? I mean, granted the best thing to do would've been to adopt the 'can't-beat-em-join-em' attitude exhibited by HK, S&W, Magpul, etc, but surely they have a right to their trademarks?
"He resisted. I asked him to comply."
"Telling him to 'eat it, bitch' is not really a request."