They aren't being terminated because it is hard to prove and you know that Carl. I'm not defending this thing, but good grief, this is exactly like not being able to prove the actual existence of new planets or black holes, but rather by observing their effect on other bodies. dALPA would HAVE to defend those people if the company tried to terminate them based on this kind of circumstantial evidence and would more than likely win which is probably why the company doesn't prosecute. I don't know enough about this thing at this point to render a decision one way or the other, but your contention is silly.