Quote:
|
THen we'll just agree to disagree. Let's see how the court sees it. Clearly, the defence thinks the courts will at least consider these arguments,or they wouldn't be making them. One man's pointless noise is another man's closely argued defence.
|
What arguments?? What defense?? AGENCY PRICING MODEL is a defense? Hell, we're not even in the same book, let alone the same page. Are you telling me that you really believe the defense is going to come to the bar all prepared to defend the AGENCY PRICING MODEL while the DoJ is arguing collusion? I may not like them, but I don't think they're particularly stupid.
What I'm saying is simple. Neither the defense nor the DoJ, nor the judge gives two craps about the words AGENCY PRICING MODEL. They won't save or damn anyone in this case. The case won't be won or lost because of AGENCY PRICING MODEL. AGENCY PRICING MODEL will only become relevant again once this case is over. AGENCY PRICING MODEL has no bearing on this case. "Collusion" is the charge. "We didn't collude (and even if it turns out we did, we did it because we love puppies)" is the defense. Clear now?