"You may have missed the part" as I noted previously where Delaware North was required by the NPS to purchase the intellectual property back in 1993. That would have included Curry Corp.

How does one "surreptitiously trademark previously untrademarked names"? They had to trademark the names with the Feds, so how could it be "surreptitiously" when the entity you are accusing of being surreptitious is filing with the entity you are alleging it is trying to keep being seen by? Not only that, but it is a matter of public record.

Not even the Feds claim, "This is simple theft from US citizens, not dissimilar to what Y'all Qaeda is trying to pull in rural Oregon at the moment. Except the tailored suits." And to compare what is happening in Oregon to Al Qaeda only serves to minimize the atrocities inflicted on the victims of that terrorist group.

So let's look at the other side:

1. DNCY offered to license the trademarks, free of any charge, to allow NPS or the new concessionaire at Yosemite to use the trademarks and avoid any name changes or impact on the park visitor experience while the dispute is being settled by the courts.

2. The NPS in 1993 required DNCY, as the new concessionaire at Yosemite, to purchase the assets of the previous concessionaire, including its intellectual property, at a cost of $115 million in today's dollars along with the assumption of $40 million in liabilities. That included several valuable trademarked names such as The Ahwahnee. In turn, the DNCY contract requires the NPS to have the new concessionaire buy all of DNCY's property, including its intellectual property. The NPS recently reaffirmed this in a December 29, 2015 letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior (retracting NPS's earlier position that intellectual property was not included).

3. DNCY has not "grossly overvalued" the trademarks. DNCY had two independent appraisals of the intellectual property – which includes trademarked names, websites and customer databases – performed by reputable third-party experts. The valuation results of those separate appraisals are very similar. Again, it should be noted the intellectual property represented a portion of the property purchased by DNCY for $115 million in today's dollars.

4. Months prior to the bid submission deadline, DNCY shared its appraisals with NPS. After NPS disputed DNCY's appraisals and failed to share its own appraisal, DNCY offered to enter binding arbitration to set a fair value for the intellectual property. DNCY also repeatedly offered to allow NPS to meet independently with DNCY's appraisers so NPS would understand the appraisal methodologies. NPS refused. Only after being ignored and then rebuffed, DNCY filed a protest with the federal Government Accountability Office requesting that NPS work with DNCY to reach a fair value to include in the bidding prospectus.

5. It is common practice for concessionaires to use trademarks at federal locations. This is done to safeguard the treasured names, words and symbols from improper use by entities not under contract with the government. The NPS is well aware of this, having required DNCY to purchase trademarks from the previous concessionaire in 1993. NPS also knew that DNCY registered additional trademarks because the government accepted DNCY's trademark registration applications.

6. The National Park Service has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issue of intellectual property. During the RFP process, it at first completely ignored the issue. Then in December 2014 NPS notified all potential bidders that the new concessionaire would be required to purchase the intangible assets of the existing concessionaire, DNCY. Then, after more than eight months and after selecting Aramark for the award, in August 2015 NPS sent a letter to DNCY stating that it had decided that it wouldn't require the winning bidder to purchase the intangible assets. Four months later on December 29, 2015 (and after DNCY commenced litigation over the issue), NPS retracted its August, 2015 letter and reaffirmed that the winning bidder must purchase intangible assets such as trademarks, customer database, and domain names from DNCY.

7. DNCY was hopeful that the NPS and the new concessionaire would not change the names of historic places or venues at Yosemite National Park. DNCY purchased these trademarks when it commenced its work in 1993, as required by its contract with NPS, and its interest is selling them on to the new concessionaire for fair value, a requirement NPS is obligated to enforce. That is why DNCY offered to license these trademarks, free of any charge, to NPS to avoid any name changes or impact on the park visitor experience while the disagreement between DNCY and NPS heads toward resolution in the courts.

As to Amtrak (not "Amtrack"), the point was to show that the government seldom performs services better than the private sector. It was about the quality of service and not about "being constantly under assault from the sociopath wing of congress". As for Amtrak's "junior track rights to every freight they encounter", that is not only false, but has no relationship to the quality of service decline that Amtrak promulgated, which prompted Santa Fe to revoke the Super Chief trademark use by Amtrak.