This article is mostly lifted from a linked articles and is a dupe of yet another article and somehow none of the three saw fit to link to the ruling. Mostly al

This article is mostly lifted from a linked articles and is a dupe of yet another article and somehow none of the three saw fit to link to the ruling. Mostly all three are caterwauling about impact without addressing the ruling on its merits which combined with the reluctance to link to the ruling makes me wonder if maybe the legal analysis in it is more compelling than they’d like to admit.