| said by JohnDoe187:My apologies see below post by avp77
I assumed you were referring to a different article than what was already posted in this thread. Yes, I had already read it from very first posting, and the link had worked for me then. The only thing that I can see that might be considered usable in your argument is that "While Mr. Knopf did not comment specifically on Voltage’s material, he said if it is inadequate, TekSavvy taking a stand against it would be an easy win for the company with its customers and would not sacrifice its status as a neutral party." Well, that's opinion, and all matters of law are always a matter of opinion or interpretation, each side thinking they have the "right" one. In practice, anything can happen and a decision can go either way.
Even if my ip were listed as one affected, I would still have the same opinion. I wouldn't be happy for sure, but Teksavvy is a company. They are not my mommy, they are not related to me in any way, other than I pay them for internet. The problem here is Voltage, and hopefully the courts will see that. |
