I read this, and it truly is exasperating. For all it's details and citations, it is filled with internal contradictions and circuitous reasoning, as though the judge had predetermined what he would decide and then stacked the deck to justify his decision, ignoring or misconstruing whatever didn't fit.

Maybe it's just easier to go with the flow by backing a big company and confirming another judge's finding than to look carefully and objectively at the evidence with an open mind and reach a sound and just conclusion that would unsettle powerful entrenched interests.

Thanks for making this available.