Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
So wouldn't the fact that they have that second line of defense all ready to go imply that they know first-line of defense isn't going to hold up?
I really don't understand how someone can simultaneously hold both "no, we did not collude" and "OK we colluded but felt we had no choice" positions. Besides... the second isn't really a defense, it's a mitigating factor for reduced charges or a lesser sentence.
|
No, that's common for lawsuits. "We didn't do it. And if we did, there's no admissible proof. And if there is, it wasn't our fault. And if it was, we had a good reason."
Including parts 2, 3 and 4 isn't considered any form of admitting guilt on point 1.
They're not denying extensive communications with all 5 publishers; they're claiming those communications aren't collusion. And they're saying that even if the communication is found to be collusion, it shouldn't be illegal in their case because it was For A Good Cause.
I don't expect either of those claims to hold up, but there's nothing fishy about the way they're presenting them.