His analysis is fine but objective. He calls out issues with both MS' and the FTC's arguments it just turns out that the FTC's arguments are far, far worse from a legal perspective. Since he isn't cheering the deal blocking arguments it is interpretated as being biased. I challenge anyone to show why his legal reasonings are wrong. I don't think many here have the credibility or credentials. He is incredibly fair and reasonable.
(read it with a deep southern texas accent)
So you think a "LAWYER" not on Microsoft's payroll referring to said company as "US" is unbiased?
And you would have me believe, that you also think a "LAWYER" (air quotes) not on Microsoft's payroll stating, I personally feel they should charge Play Station owners, which he states specifically your honor $100 and give it to Gamepass players free" is unbiased?
There is much more evidence your honor but this is simply exhibit A, common sense dictates that we shouldn't need to move on any further as the foundation has already been laid. You see your honor, the dictionary definition of the word Unbiased is simply showing no prejudice for or against something, impartial. The above evidence shows an obvious bias and lack of impartiality.
As to the bolded part in our discovery, there is no evidence that the accused did in fact call out issues toward Microsoft, (to be known henceforth as the corporation) in said video. Having gone over the video in its entirety for review the handling of the corporation was done with care and kid gloves, outside of civil cases, feelings have no jurisdiction or place in the courtroom. It has also been brought to my attention that the accused partakes in playing games that are not owned or published by the corporation. This point must surely prove that he is unbiased your honor, outside of the fact that Phil Spencer also plays games that are not owned or published by the corporation. Now I do believe at one point in time this "Lawyer" may have in fact been an impartial participant in the legalities of this case. However, financial gain and social status seem to have skewed this man's judgment.
This man has also in the past shown his bias when stating that this should go easy for "US" there's that word again. Let's take a closer look at the word us.
You see, the good book of webster, superseded only by the good book, defines the word us as follows. used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people as the object of a verb or preposition. Himself (long break) and one or more other people? What one or more other people is he referring to in this case? The prosecution rests for now, your honor.
Edited:
No more fun stuff (remove country accent)
Everyone that thinks this is about the FTC looking out for Sony needs to pull their heads out of their asses. Read what the actual problem is it's out there for you to read. This is to prevent Microsoft from building another monopoly. Not that this one acquisition would make them a monopoly but future purchases could. Microsoft has proved its ineptitude with its own studios so has decided to buy its way to the top and eliminate the competition on the way up. This is also (unfortunately) becoming a political issue, which does not bode well for Microsoft. It's odd how most people don't connect the dots. The problem is what they are trying to do with Gamepass, It's call consolidation. As fun as it might seem its bad for competition and business in general. See windows as an example of what that model looks like.
.
