Starbucks Vs. Sam Buck's

This is a short addition, but I think it is absolutely pathetic for a nationwide incredibly lucrative chain of coffee houses called Starbucks to attack a single coffee house called "Sam Buck's" based on the similarity of name. Normally an imposter would make me feel that Starbucks was justified in doing so, but in this case the owner's name was "Samantha Buck".

Court rulings held that Sam would need to change the name of her coffee house, and I don't suppose anyone should argue with the law, but shame on Starbucks.

The next time they think they're doing right by providing the best health care package to their employees or working for coffee growers rights, why don't they stop and ask what the harm in letting a sole proprietor operate a coffee house when the name follows the owners name which just happens to be similar to the brand "Starbucks".

Oh yeah...and Sam Buck will be paying Starbucks legal fees.