look at business. Some are quick to say that companies do not create. Yet, they will then impose morals on the company. How can someone state that a business cannot create, but should exhibit our morals and values. The reality is that in the business world unless you have it in writing; you are probably not going to get it. Business does not understand right or wrong. Good or bad. Its sole function is to make money. I am not trying to say that the heirs should be left out. They should reap some reward from the creation of Superman. I just find myself going back and forth on what that should be. It seems to me that this is a simple case of the kids wanting to profit from 'family jewellery' that daddy sold a long time ago. I'm not convinced that the Siegel and Shuster heirs are morally entitled to anything. If there is such a generous settlement on the table, then how is it this is about money. Does everyone understand Laura is over seventy years old? And how long will this case drag on. Keep in mind Toberoff won a summary judgment. It can be assumed Warner will pursue this until all appeals have run out. If it was about money Laura would have taken the money. Graeme, if a person sells something while he is alive, his heirs have no legal or moral rights to whatever was sold - either while the person is alive