> Amazon says the ruling is 'factually incorrect'; it’s considering appealing the decision. If it were factually incorrect, it should be easy to demonstrate th

> Amazon says the ruling is 'factually incorrect'; it’s considering appealing the decision. If it were factually incorrect, it should be easy to demonstrate this in an appeal. Even if one court fails understand the obvious facts of the case, the second one will, that's what appeals are for after all. I look forward to a full and transparent account of the facts, which will no doubt demonstrate Amazon's probity in this matter. I guess the only possible way they wouldn't win on appeal, or wouldn't make the appeal, is if they're lying. Unlikely, but worth bringing up on the off chance.