That's false. It's evidence, but it isn't conclusive. Someone thought that the law suit was worth filing, and that could be because the law suit has a chance of succeeding. It could also be some other reason, and it could also fail even if completely good faith -- this is why the evidence is non-conclusive.
That's false. It's evidence, but it isn't conclusive. Someone thought that the law suit was worth filing, and that could be because the law suit has a chance of succeeding. It could also be some other reason, and it could also fail even if completely good faith -- this is why the evidence is non-conclusive.
> Someone thought that the law suit was worth filing
No, someone thought that they could win a lawsuit.
We live in a highly litigious society. This happens all the time.
It's not _evidence_, it's _suspicion_, and it's asking it to be reviewed in a court of law.
By your logic, counter-lawsuits and especially the SLAPP suits are also evidence.
Still, RAM manufacturers have a long history of price fixing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing
[dead]