The primary focus of the final causes of action, for conspiracy and attempt to monopolize, is damage to Willis at the time that he signed the anti-competition agreement and shortly thereafter, while he resided in Alaska. Again, if proved, these damages could be estimated and projected forward in time to provide him with adequate compensation under AS 45.50.576. This rule serves several functions. Second, it forces plaintiffs to keep their cases moving at a reasonable speed. We have examined Willis' remaining assertions of error and have determined that none are properly before us.
All issues pertaining to the superior court's issuance of the preliminary injunction are now moot.
Further, our review of the record persuades us that no basis for invocation of the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine has been demonstrated. None of Willis' points regarding the enforceability of the covenant not to compete has been raised properly in this appeal.