It's amazing how many people seem to believe "guilty until proven innocent"
is a good thing.
There's a reason it's viewed "innocent until proven
guilty".
And the concept contains a couple requirements. First:
The
accuser must present sufficient reasonable evidence to show wrong-doing. This
includes providing all the appropriate facts and covering all the appropriate
bases required by Law.
Microsoft failed to do this by absolutely refusing
to enter negotiations in the first place. This factor alone should have ended
the case with Microsoft receiving a slap by the Court and told to go negotiate
first - my humble opinion.
The second is:
The accused gets an
opportunity to refute the evidence and provide their own evidence.
The
basic principles involved mean:
If the accuser does not provide evidence of
wrong-doing, then the accused has no need to present evidence of defense. The
accused is presumed innocent because insufficient evidence to reasonably show
guilt has been produced.
And now your claiming wrong-doing following the
same line of reasoning Microsoft used:
Motorola can't prove it's not unfair
- therefore it's unfair.
In your words:
It's THEIR
responsibility to show
proof that they've had AT LEAST ONE bilateral negotiation
that was initiated on
similar terms and resulted in a RAND RATE ... AND THEY
FAILED.
No, actually Motorola does not have that responsibility
till Microsoft can show how/why 2.25% starting rate is wrong. And neither
Microsoft, nor yourself, have chosen to provide reasoning for that. Just a
claim it's wrong. Just an opinion, a conclusion, but no "why it's
wrong".
Sorry - I'm among others who won't buy that line of reasoning
which is why you're running into people asking you to support your
position.
No! There is no particular requirement for you to support your
position. However, if you're not going to support your position, you should
clearly state your position once, that it's your opinion, and that's that. We
can accept that.
But that's not what you're doing - you're continuing to
post your position as though it's established fact. Yet I'm one of those who
doesn't see the fact as being established. Just a situation where Judge played
school yard monitor to punish another child for standing up to defend themselves
against a bully.
So... you don't want to back your opinion? That's ok,
but that doesn't mean we have to continue to listen to your opinion any further.
Or give it any weight in the future. Just as, if we don't present reasoning to
support our own opinion, you don't have to listen to ours or give ours any
weight of validity.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
