3 ms·

Have you read the judgement? ROFL They justify the verdict on abusive monopolies through a maze of findings that involve the actual letter of the law not being

Have you read the judgement? ROFL They justify the verdict on abusive monopolies through a maze of findings that involve the actual letter of the law not being flouted but agreeing with the commissions convoluted approach of discretionary parsing of the devices sold in a 10 year period and associated success or failure of other competitors that Google has zero control over and which may have been caused by a billion other factors. Must be fun defending a judgement you haven't read with the exact reason the comment you responded to is pissed at highlighted so nicely in your third paragraph.

unity1001 4y ago
All the proceeds in civil law follow the same pattern. There is no need to nitpick specifics like in common law. Therefore: > involve the actual letter of the law not being flouted but agreeing with the commissions convoluted approach of discretionary parsing of the devices sold in a 10 year period and associated success or failure of other competitors etc etc... Those details don't change anything like they could in common law. If the law encompasses ALL of those details and outlines what should be done. And that is what is done. If those were not covered by the RELEVANT law, the result would not be this one. Note that - there still would be a result. Because if they werent covered by that particular law, there would be another, larger-scope law that covers those. Again, this is a matter of Angloamericans being used to their feudal legal system in which one can sly his or her way out of things by nitpicking and arguing on details. You people are so used to that mentality that you cant break that framework. Leading to arguments like yours.
- DisjointedHunt 4y ago
  I'm not AngloAmerican, you prejudicial, Racist fuck
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > I'm not AngloAmerican, you prejudicial, Racist fuck If you talk like one, walk like one, act like one, for the purpose of a discussion, you are one. And save your faux outrage. Angloamerican is a term widely used in political science and history.

unity1001 4y ago

All the proceeds in civil law follow the same pattern. There is no need to nitpick specifics like in common law. Therefore: > involve the actual letter of the law not being flouted but agreeing with the commissions convoluted approach of discretionary parsing of the devices sold in a 10 year period and associated success or failure of other competitors etc etc... Those details don't change anything like they could in common law. If the law encompasses ALL of those details and outlines what should be done. And that is what is done. If those were not covered by the RELEVANT law, the result would not be this one. Note that - there still would be a result. Because if they werent covered by that particular law, there would be another, larger-scope law that covers those. Again, this is a matter of Angloamericans being used to their feudal legal system in which one can sly his or her way out of things by nitpicking and arguing on details. You people are so used to that mentality that you cant break that framework. Leading to arguments like yours.

DisjointedHunt 4y ago
I'm not AngloAmerican, you prejudicial, Racist fuck
- unity1001 4y ago
  > I'm not AngloAmerican, you prejudicial, Racist fuck If you talk like one, walk like one, act like one, for the purpose of a discussion, you are one. And save your faux outrage. Angloamerican is a term widely used in political science and history.