> I genuinely don't think that was a novel argument to his interlocutors. I think they'd thought of that, and I think they have good counterarguments. I guess

> I genuinely don't think that was a novel argument to his interlocutors. I think they'd thought of that, and I think they have good counterarguments. I guess I don't understand your point about Stare Decisis, then. Is your point that Stallman knew that his argument was wrong, but he put it forward anyway? Was there some piece of social case law he was supposed to be referencing here?