Read my response again, then
I said, in the USA.
Now as for your judgement of the amount of over-reaction, well let's compare your grounds versus Brad's to speak on the issue.
Unlike you Brad lives in the US. He has been heavily involved in legal matters for a long time. And he ran that article by lawyers before publishing.
You, on the other hand, lack all of those qualifications. OTOH you are armed with equal doses of ignorance, a sense of how things ideally would be, and the arrogance to believe that you don't need to know more to form a final opinion.
I think that I'll take Brad's position more seriously, thanks.
Ben
PS I suspect that I know more about the US legal system than you do as well. And reading that article, Brad's concerns struck me as quite plausible. I don't know enough to know whether he is right, but you would need to know more than I do to show that he is wrong.
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]