This is a ridiculous, nutty criticism. You're complaining that I left off "lol I did" and instead replaced it with "in reference to the Wikipedia article about US v. Microsoft"? That's exactly what you did by adding "[read the wikipedia article]"! In fact, you left off a part of the sentence too, the "lol" at the start.
> this very clearly is the poster explaining they meant it in the colloquial sense rather than the strict legal sense. If they had meant it in the strict legal sense they would have claimed _all_ of it was overturned on appeal.
No, this doesn't follow at all. It's still the legal sense.
Moreover, that wasn't the end of the case, which was my point in responding to whynotminot. We don't have to guess about what whynotminot meant, because they said exactly what they were referring to: the appeal. They were not referring to the settlement. Nor did they consider that the case was remanded back to district court. So any legal or colloquial "win" was temporary at best.
> bolster your own argument, namely that people who can win don't settle
No, my argment was that people who did win don't settle. As I explained above, the appeal judgment did not actually end the case, which is why the parties ended up settling.
> and now here you are, cherry-picking quotes to try and make an argument. Very alpha of you.
