This seems complicated and messy. A few random thoughts, I am not a lawyer... * being a critic of Amazon's policies IS being a critic of Amazon. There is not

This seems complicated and messy. A few random thoughts, I am not a lawyer... * being a critic of Amazon's policies IS being a critic of Amazon. There is nothing wrong with either but let's not pretend they are different. * he made a specific claim: that amazon's policies increased prices for consumers, that is VERY hard to define, let alone. You could argue just as well that their policies REDUCED prices on Amazon. I think that was foolish as he has invited this suit and now has to offer some defence. If his claims were repeated to congress, he might have some immunity there, but I don't think that applies to a civil suit... * the CA DA who brought the main case should be assisting here, as he is "their witness". That might mean helping get documents, it might mean quashing requests for them etc. * the US legal system is a huge mess and basically whoever is willing to spend the most money probably wins. "Don't hate the player" etc. * I wonder how courts will rule on this policy, I can see arguments both ways...