Two questions there. On the first, for a lot of us, the fact that you didn't name the other party of the merger is exactly why we suspect it. Microsoft has a

Two questions there. On the first, for a lot of us, the fact that you didn't name the other party of the merger is exactly why we suspect it. Microsoft has a pretty littered history of anti competitive tactics. An even more spotted history of acquiring things to let them die. (To be fair, I don't think there are that many mergers that work out in the mid to long term?) So, the fact that a lot of the legal decision came down to taking Microsoft's word that they wouldn't be Microsoft is concerning on its own. On the second? I confess I didn't follow the arguments they were making, all told. Love to see analysis here.