World Kissing Day Shortbread

thedosbox, you're welcome.

PC hardware and computing

  1. Flexispot M3B standing desk riser review @ PC Perspective
  2. GeForce GTX 1050 3GB review @ Guru3D
  3. Lian Li O11 Air case review & benchmarks @ Gamers Nexus
  4. Asus XG Station Pro review @ Hexus
  5. GeChic On-Lap 1305H portable monitor review @ KitGuru
  6. Kingston UV500 SATA SSD review @ Legit Reviews
  7. Ryzen 7 2700X vs. Core i7-8700K: 35 game benchmark @ TechSpot
  8. The ASRock X399 Professional Gaming motherboard review @ AnandTech

Games, culture, and VR

  1. Dead Air is S.T.A.L.K.E.R's best standalone megamod yet @ Rock Paper Shotgun
  2. Farming Simulator 19 and the ethics of pesticide brands @ Rock Paper Shotgun
  3. Google plays Quake 3 better than you @ Quarter To Three

Hacks, gadgets and crypto-jinks

  1. A cartoon-ifying camera for instant absurdism @ HackADay
  2. Dropcopter's drones boost crop pollination by up to 60% in bad bee years @ New Atlas
  3. Spraychalk anoints your sidewalks with precision sandprints @ HackADay

Science, technology, and space news

  1. Disney's new robot limbs trained using neural networks @ HackADay
  2. Senior scientist argues that we should bypass Europa for Enceladus @ Ars Technica
  3. Rockets at the ready: Virgin Orbit awarded license for airborne satellite launch @ New Atlas
  4. AI algorithm teaches a car to drive from scratch in 20 minutes @ New Atlas

Cheese, memes, and shiny things

  1. Old-school lessons could make artisan cheese safer @ futurity.org
  2. Mistel MD600 Barocco RGB keyboard review @ TechPowerUp
  3. McDonald's wants 'nonsense' cheese lawsuit dismissed. It would create 'utter chaos,' lawyer says @ miamiherald.com
Colton Westrate

I post Shortbread, I host BBQs, I tell stories, and I strive to keep folks happy.

Comments closed
    • Unknown-Error
    • 1 year ago

    xo xo xo xo xo xo

    • thedosbox
    • 1 year ago

    [quote<]thedosbox, you're welcome.[/quote<] I'm honoured 😀 [edit] d'oh, windows emoji's don't render

    • UberGerbil
    • 1 year ago

    Followed by tomorrow, World Mononucleosis Day

    • chuckula
    • 1 year ago

    You forgot [url=https://www.extremetech.com/g00/computing/272558-japan-tests-silicon-for-exascale-computing-in-2021?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3D&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=14<]this article about how ARM has officially taken over supercomputing.[/url<] Behold ARM's revolutionary new idea in supercomputing that those morons at Intel will never be able to duplicate with their idiotically obsolete x86 crap: [quote<]The new supercomputer will hit these heights in part by using ARM’s new 512-bit extensions for SIMD compute. [/quote<] In conclusion... THANKS AMD!

      • synthtel2
      • 1 year ago

      Whoa, that’s the first I’ve heard of SVE and it looks fantastic!

      That implementation is probably right to be 512-bit (given it’s HPC), and with SVE it doesn’t much matter as far as programming it (assuming SVE is headed for some kind of wider adoption, anyway). I’ll have to look into what kind of wizardry they’re doing with register allocation.

      • Waco
      • 1 year ago

      I’m glad there are challengers to Intel in the HPC space. They’ve been screwing us over for years…

    • Neutronbeam
    • 1 year ago

    After the final countdown, I can’t believe someone would still want to bypass [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw<]Europa[/url<]!

      • smilingcrow
      • 1 year ago

      This is Europa (Santana) – [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot6pSrKT1oc[/url<] What you linked was Europe.

    • Fonbu
    • 1 year ago

    The ASRock X399 Professional Gaming motherboard has a AQUANTIA AQC107 10Gbit network. 10Gbit is starting to trickle down into the consumer space!

      • Neutronbeam
      • 1 year ago

      “10Gbit…trickle down”–Giggity Giggity Goo!

      • chubbyhorse
      • 1 year ago

      I wouldn’t know what to do with my 6Mb/s DSL- the speed would probably crash my router as it would just get it’s packet buffer filled up instantly :-p

    • uni-mitation
    • 1 year ago

    [quote<]McDonald's wants 'nonsense' cheese lawsuit dismissed. It would create 'utter chaos,' lawyer says @ miamiherald.com [/quote<] 1- McDonald's (Defendant) has no duty under any common law doctrine, or statute to offer the customer a discount for foregoing a particular ingredient. If Papa John's offers a Hawaiian pizza but you don't want the pineapple, then Papa John's is not expected under any legally cognizable doctrine to offer you that "Hawaiian" pizza for less value. You order stuff with the implicit assumption that the restaurant will only charge you for the advertised addition of said ingredient depending on availability. There is not even a whiff of false advertising, or any sort of common law claim. 2- This Court will most likely than not grant Defendant's dispositive motion to dismiss this complaint. uni-mitation

      • NovusBogus
      • 1 year ago

      It’s definitely a profoundly stupid case, and a fine example of America’s overabundance of lawyers and whiners. I say that as someone who always orders his burgers plain because [s<]I value the sexual purity of my hamburger[/s<] they're just better that way.

        • Srsly_Bro
        • 1 year ago

        Please see my comment and withhold judgement until you understand the Plaintiff’s claim.

          • uni-mitation
          • 1 year ago

          Read my reply, and then give yourself an opportunity to make a more informed opinion.

          uni-mitation

            • Pancake
            • 1 year ago

            [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EnsUeR2MyI<]KHHHHAAAAAAANNNNN!!!!!!!!![/url<]

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 1 year ago

      Here is the complaint:

      [url<]https://www.classaction.org/news/mcdonalds-facing-antitrust-class-action-over-decision-to-display-only-with-cheese-options-on-menu[/url<] scroll down and you can DL the PDF. Your analysis ignores some of the key complaints by the plaintiff. When you read the case you will see you made your conclusion prematurely. The Plaintiff does not demand that Mcdonald's give them a discount on a Quarter Pounder/Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese ordered without cheese. The plaintiff alleges that McDonald's previous had a Quarter Pounder AND Double Quarter Pounder, sans cheese. The argument isn't that McDonald's should give a discount on items not desired on the selection. The argument is that previously McDonald's had on menu the same sandwich without cheese. The plaintiff feels that because previously there was the option to order the sandwich without cheese, the plaintiff should be able to order the same sandwich now, and not be charged for the cheese that is not desired. It is NOT ordering a sandwich with cheese and electing to receive the sandwich without cheese. It is ordering a sandwich that previously existed on the menu WITHOUT cheese that sold for a lesser price. Please scroll down at view "Receipt E" in the PDF and Section 29. Now remember, the Quarter Pounder and Quarter Pounder with Cheese are items that were purchased as recently as 3/16/18. McDonald's, by only listing the version with cheese, is charging customers an increased cost. $4.19 with cheese $3.79 without cheese The McDonald's App allows a person to purchase the Quarter Pounder AND Quarter Pound with Cheese. In a McDonald's restaurant, customers are not given that option, and subsequently overcharged. I hope you better understand the claim by the plaintiff. I am mildly frustrated with your own "summary judgement" on this case without reading the facts of the case, and siding with the corporation. It is best to suppress your own internal biases and emotions when analyzing legal cases. Edit: I'm triggered because I expected better from you.

        • uni-mitation
        • 1 year ago

        [quote<] I am mildly frustrated with your own "summary judgement" on this case without reading the facts of the case, and siding with the corporation. It is best to suppress your own internal biases and emotions when analyzing legal cases. Edit: I'm triggered because I expected better from you.[/quote<] I will take time of my day to go the extra mile that you failed to do by citing my sources. This type of work is actually what legal assistants do. So here we go, and I hope you learn something. 1- There are three causes of action on the complaint that you cite. [i<]cause of action defined[/i<] 1. A group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. 2. A legal theory of a lawsuit [b<]See Black Law's Dictionary, page 102, 4th Ed. Pocket Edition. [/b<] (I am not using any standardized citing format. Basically this is what the plaintiffs in this case are using as a legally cognizable claim for relief. [i<] class action [/i<] A lawsuit in which the court authorizes a single person or a small group of people to represent the interests of a larger group. *Federal procedure has several prerequisites for maintaining a class action: (1) the class must be so large that individual suits would be so large that individual suits would be impracticable, (2) there must be legal or factual questions common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties must be typical of those of the class, and (4) the representative parties must adequately protect the interests of the class. Federal Rules of Civil Procedures P.23 [b<] See Black’s law, page 119 These [url=https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/class-action-information.html<] four elements [/url<] are commonly referred to as (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) Typicality, and (4) Adequacy of representation. Please refer to [url=https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-iv-parties/rule-23-class-actions/<] Rule 23 [/url<] of Federal Civil procedure to read the other requirements that are initially pleaded in the Class Action complaint. As part of their pleading requirements, they must plead in detail who are the members of the class the plaintiffs seek to represent for each cause of action (count). I will leave the reader to read about who are the classes, I will omit them in this discussion since it is irrelevant to this discussion. These counts are: 1.1- Violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act by the alleged use of "tie-in sales” as violation of anti-competitive practices. [i<] Sherman Antitrust Act [/i<] A federal statute, passed in 1890, that prohibits direct or indirect interference with the freely competitive interstate production and distribution of goods. *This Act was amended by the Clayton Act in 1914. 15 USCA Sec. 1-17 [b] See [/b<] Black Law’s page 691. As pleaded, the plaintiffs allege that the “tie-in” of the QuarterPounder which as a individual trademarked product does not carry any type of cheese product, with an additional cheese product is a violation of the Act’s “tie-in” provision. Please stick around for the analysis. 1.2- Violation of [url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0501/0501PartIIContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2018&Title=%2D%3E2018%2D%3EChapter%20501%2D%3EPart%20II<] Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act [/url<] In short, this is Florida’s complementary statutory scheme of the Federal Code so cited for count 1. I will not analyze this for sake of brevity and time. If you want to then pay me. 😀 1.3- Defendant’s (McDonald’s )Unjust Enrichment- This is a common law cause of action. [i<] Unjust Enrichment [/i<] 1. The retention of a benefit conferred by another, without offering compensation, in circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected. 2. A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense. 3. The area of law dealing with unjustifiable benefits of this kind. Black’s Law page 797. There are [url=https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unjust-enrichment/<] five elements [/url<] to this cause of action that must be pleaded in the complaint. Check the link for them. I fail to see how these elements are met in this particular fact pattern. This is in my opinion the weakest cause of action of the three. I like this take: [quote<] A general equitable principle that no person should be allowed to profit at another's expense without making restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. [/quote<] [url=http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Unjust_Enrichment<] Lawbrain [/url<] Please imagine back to the [url=http://pediaa.com/what-is-equity-law/<] days of England [/url<] where the courts of Equity and Law where two different distinct creatures. When the great nation of these United States of America was founded, these jurisprudence traditions and courts were adopted by the founders. [quote<] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity...[/quote<] U.S. Const. Art. 3, sec. 2, first paragraph. Therefore, even though the United Kingdom still has its distinct Court of Chancery, we have simply joined these two courts into one. The plaintiffs seek various relief in equity and in law based upon these three counts.

          • uni-mitation
          • 1 year ago

          Continued from Above
          Part 2 of 4

          2.0- Legal Analysis of Sherman Act “tie-in” sales and this case.

          This is what the Federal Trade Commission has to say about it:

          [quote<] Offering products together as part of a package can benefit consumers who like the convenience of buying several items at the same time. Offering products together can also reduce the manufacturer's costs for packaging, shipping, and promoting the products. Of course, some consumers might prefer to buy products separately, and when they are offered only as part of a package, it can be more difficult for consumers to buy only what they want.[/quote<] [url=https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products<] at first paragraph. [/url<] An example of many of what a “tie-in” or “bundle” sale would be KFC’s [url=https://www.kfc.com/menu/promotions/20-fill-up<] $20 fill-up [/url<] for example. Please note that KFC is providing an incentive for a potential consumer to buy more of its product by offering this bundle. Please note that the Federal Trade Commission is the agency that has statutory enforcement authority to enforce the Sherman Act as amended as the “Clayton Act.” [quote<] This chapter includes among other statutory provisions the Sherman Act, comprising , the Clayton Act, comprising and , Labor, the Wilson Tariff Act, comprising , the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act, comprising , the "Expediting Act", , and the "Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976", comprising . For complete classification of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, see Short Title note under section 1 of this title. [/quote<] [url=http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml;jsessionid=A27F6811D8757025A2DA6D9823584CAE?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-chapter1&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUxNS1zZWN0aW9uMTI%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim&edition=prelim<] historical note [/url<] Please also see all statutes that the FTC enforces including the [url=https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/statutes<] Clayton Act. [/url<] [quote<] The argument isn't that McDonald's should give a discount on items not desired on the selection. The argument is that previously McDonald's had on menu the same sandwich without cheese. The plaintiff feels that because previously there was the option to order the sandwich without cheese, the plaintiff should be able to order the same sandwich now, and not be charged for the cheese that is not desired. It is NOT ordering a sandwich with cheese and electing to receive the sandwich without cheese. It is ordering a sandwich that previously existed on the menu WITHOUT cheese that sold for a lesser price. [/quote<] That’s incorrect as per the complaint. What the complaint alleges as per this count is [quote<] 77. McDonald’s tying of these two products constitutes a per se violation of the Sherman Act. [/quote<] Allegation 77 of the cited complaint. I was unable to get Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed in this case from PACER due to some technical difficulties. It would be simply be the icing on the cake, not truly necessarily.

            • uni-mitation
            • 1 year ago

            Part 3 of 4

            Anyways, a “per se violation of the Sherman Act” is a term of art used to mean that the Defendant is in technical violation of a statutory provision. To help us understand, let’s use the Justice Department’s legal analysis on the tying & bundling:

            [quote<] Courts have sometimes analyzed bundling under the rubric of tying. In United States v. Loew's, Inc.,(26) for example, the Supreme Court found that the practice of licensing feature films to television stations only in blocks (or "bundles") containing films the stations did not want to license constituted unlawful tying in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act.(27) Nonetheless, in explaining its tying analysis in Jefferson Parish, the Supreme Court noted the fact that "a purchaser is 'forced' to buy a product he would not have otherwise bought even from another seller" does not imply an "adverse impact on competition."(28) Thus, to prevail on an unlawful tying claim, a plaintiff would have to show an exclusionary effect on other sellers as a result of plaintiff's thwarted desire to purchase substitutes for one or more items in the bundle from other sources that harms competition. [/quote<] [url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/chapter-5-antitrust-issues-tying-and-bundling-intellectual-property-rights#N_5_<] Internal citations omitted. [/url<] and [url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-5<] again, [/url<] [quote<] Tying is one of the few remaining antitrust areas where a rule of per se illegality exists. In antitrust law, a per se rule is appropriate only if courts, having had sufficient experience with a practice, can determine with confidence that the practice is anticompetitive in almost all circumstances when applying the rule of reason.(112) Echoing the views of the many legal scholars, commentators, economists, and others who have questioned for decades whether tying should be accorded per se treatment, panelists criticized existing tying standards. No panelist at the hearings endorsed the Supreme Court's current per se framework,(113) and other commentators single it out for particular criticism.(114) Their rationale is that tying often has procompetitive benefits and thus does not fall appropriately into any category of per se treatment, which is typically reserved for conduct "that would always or almost always tend to restrict competition and decrease output."(115) The Supreme Court has moved away from per se rules in other contexts. In 1977, the Court overturned the per se rule for nonprice vertical restraints.(116) In 1997, the Court overturned a per se rule for maximum resale price maintenance.(117) And, in 2007, the Court overturned the per se rule against minimum resale price maintenance.(118) In those cases, the Court determined that the practices could in many circumstances benefit consumers, counseling against applying a rule of per se illegality.(119) [/quote<] I honestly fail to see how the overwhelming jurisprudence and the current expected trend for this Supreme Court to turn to a more nuanced test in regards to tying arrangement in determining whether they are anti-competitive if we assume this current case to actually be a per-se violation which in my opinion, it is plain to see it isn’t.

            • uni-mitation
            • 1 year ago

            Part 4 of 4

            What Defendant here does is something that is prevalent throughout multiple service/goods industries. If we declare this tying of the Quarterpounder with the tied product to be a per-se violation of the Sherman act, then as [url=http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-bz-mcdonalds-seeks-to-dismiss-qp-suit-20180702-story.html<] McDonald’s replies, [/url<] [quote<] McDonald’s said the suit is fundamentally flawed because it is based on the theory that retail restaurants “have some legal obligation to reduce the price of a standard menu item to reflect the customer’s decision to decline some ingredient or component of that item.” “This is, in a word, nonsense,” McDonald’s response said, adding that forcing restaurants to reduce prices to reflect the customer’s decision to “hold” or delete an ingredient “not only has no basis in law, but would create utter chaos in the retail food industry.” The response also said McDonald’s doesn’t control prices that franchisee restaurants charge for their menu items, including the decision of whether to reduce the price of a Quarter Pounder with cheese if the customer declines the cheese. [/quote<] Plus, there is this whole deal of harm that the Plaintiff and its class is required to show that it has suffered. This is generally referred to as “standing to sue.” [quote<] A party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right. *To have standing in federal court, a plaintiff must show (1) that the challenged conduct has caused the plaintiff actual injury, and (2) that the interest sought to be protected is within the zone of interests meant to be regulated by the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question. [/quote<] Black’s law page 709. 3.0- In Summary, I have given the above well-source legal citations & arguments as to why it is plain to see that this whole lawsuit is more likely than not to be dismissed as a matter of law in Defendant’s dispositive motion to dismiss in its favor. I look forward to your well-reasoned, persuasive, and authoritative sourced rebuttal. As of now, I STRONGLY STAND BY MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS AS MY BEST INFORMED NON-LEGAL, BUT ACADEMIC OPINION IN THIS CASE. No bias or emotions needed, just your brain. Your BALL. uni-mitation

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 1 year ago

            McDonald’s has a Quarter Pounder WITHOUT cheese that can be purchased on the app, but not in store.

            The person does not want a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese. The person wants a Quarter Pounder and wants to be able to purchase it in-store.

            The person wants to be allowed to purchase an item that already exists for the price that already exists, in store. Instead the person is not allowed to purchase the lesser-priced item that does not create any undue burden on McDonald’s, because they currently make it and have a price for it.

            You are still stuck on the premise that there is ONLY the item with cheese and only cheese.

            That is not the case here.

            The product exists in cheese and no cheese as evidenced by receipt E from the document I linked.

            If there was ONLY a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, and the person wanted a discount if the person did not elect to receive cheese on the item, I would agree with you.

            You seem to be ignoring important facts of the case and refuse to accept there is a variant without cheese that can be purchased on the App, but not in-store.

            • uni-mitation
            • 1 year ago

            This reply is not a legal argument. You have failed to rebut my legal argument, my cited sources, or cite any other causes of actions that Plaintiff may seek relief in a Court of Law & Equity.

            What you just wrote is 100% worthless in any pleading, and would be struck as a [url=https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sham-pleading/<] sham pleading. [/url<] [quote<] You seem to be ignoring important facts of the case and refuse to accept there is a variant without cheese that can be purchased on the App, but not in-store. [/quote<] Am I? How are you able to tell after I wrote all of these pages with well-sourced secondary legal sources explaining in layman detail what the complaint was alleging, the classes, the causes of action, etc. Do you really think that I wrote those pages without actually sitting down and reading stuff? That I opined on an article about a lawsuit without actually reading the complaint? This is one of my pet peeves. If you are gonna call out someone then be prepared to actually back it up or don't bother doing it at all. My original informed opinion stands that this court will most likely grant Defendant's motion to dismiss this action. Now, it is still the opinion of a non-expert, but one that is made with a background training in paralegal studies. I may be wrong, but that doesn't mean that I should concede any of my points until a more persuasive legal argument is made otherwise! It is a pity that my Pacer account is unaccessible. I would actually have gone into more detail. Everyone is an expert on everything on the Internet, yet nobody bothers to do the hard work of sourcing well-made arguments. What a paradox. Enjoy the weekend. uni-mitation

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 1 year ago

            I agree that your sources apply if McDonald’s did not offer a Quarter Pounder with Cheese only. The Sherman Act doesn’t apply if the same product exists without cheese but McDonald’s refuses to serve it in its restaurants, thereby over-charging customers.

            McDonald’s rebuttal said the claim is nonsense because it should not have to offer a discount if a customer chooses to have an ingredient removed from an item.

            The customer wanted a Quarter Pounder, not a Quarter Pounder with cheese, and was charged for the more expensive item that is available to purchase on the App per the receipt I had shown.

            The Quarter Pounder sans Cheese exists, but not in restaurants. That’s the issue.

            You are continuing to argue that there is only one option and that is WITH cheese. Receipt E in the complaint shows that is not true. Since that is not true, McDonald’s refuses to charge the customer for an item, that exists, and also costs less.

            Again, if the only option is With Cheese, I would accept your Sherman Act argument and toss out this case.

            • uni-mitation
            • 1 year ago

            I ask you two simple questions:

            1- What is the relief that you seek from the Court?

            2- What cause of action do you cite for such relief?

            Then maybe you might start making sense to the Court. This is how pleadings work. Again, total rubbish what you wrote. No use to your client. They are going back home without the opportunity to buy that quarter pounder sans cheese!

            uni-mitation

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 1 year ago

            1. Relief is damages which has been established.

            2. See Below

            [url<]http://gwclc.com/Library/America/USA/The%20Clayton%20Act.pdf[/url<] Clayton Act Sec 13(a) Sec 13(a) Price; selection of customers Customers on App can purchase QuarterPounder. Customers in-store cannot purchase the Quarter Pounder. Per the section above, that practice is a violation. §45. Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission (a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade [url<]http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-chapter2-subchapter1&edition=prelim[/url<] Federal Trade Commission Act Sec45(a) & (b) The linked information should be a good starting point. McDonald's essentially discriminated in price by selecting customers and charging two different prices, on the App and in-store. The FTC takes issue with these unfair practices affecting commerce. McDonald's knows it can charge the higher price for the QuarterPounder with Cheese. If people had the option to purchase it without cheese, such as people with lactose intolerance, or people who don't eat cheese, McDonald's would make less money with a cheaper option. The company isn't run my idiots; they serve to maximize revenue. Ordering the sandwich with cheese and removing the cheese from the delivered sandwich, allows McDonald's to earn the same revenue instead of offering the cheaper alternative to all customers.

            • uni-mitation
            • 1 year ago

            Response to #2 above:

            Both causes of action that you cite are inapplicable as a matter of law.

            The referenced Clayton price discrimination provision is for the different prices of LIKE COMMODITIES. This means if there was a table salt supplier, and it decided to discriminate on the price of commodities like that of salt, then as a matter of law this supplier would be in violation of that provision.

            Contrast that with the instant case where we have a Quarterpounder, a trademarked product from a private company that is NOT A COMMODITY.

            Commodity: 1. An article of trade or commerce. 2. An economic good, esp. a raw material or an agricultural product. Black’s law disctionary, 4th Ed. Pocket page 132

            The cited provision states “commodities of like grade” and “where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination…”

            In short, this provision was aimed to curb the monopolistic, market controlling actions of cartels, or a small group of industry players in a specific commodity like salt, wood, refined fossil fuels, etc from discriminating in price in the furtherance to harm the competitiveness of the economy. How is a private corporation making its arbitrary choice to only offer a product, that is clearly not a commodity, with another tied product an actual violation of this provision? Good luck having to explain this to a judge.

            The second cited cause of action, the cited FTC provision is solely a provision that the agency has the authority under Congress to bring forth in a court of law. A private citizen is not authorized under the FTC act to bring such enforcement.

            [quote<] The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. [/quote<] FTC act, section 45(a)(2). As far as I know, the FTC may bring a civil action on behalf of a class of victims. But then as a matter of law, the plaintiffs in this case are not subsidiaries, or are acting under the direction of the FTC. The two cited causes of actions are not applicable as a matter of law to this case. Try again. uni-mitation

            • uni-mitation
            • 1 year ago

            Response to #1:

            That is not how it works. You need to plead in detail the relief that you seek. Before you seek for the relief, you must also show substantial harm or injury suffered as a result of Defendant’s actions. This is the very definition of “standing” given in the last page of my original reply to your reply.

            Show me how people that voluntarily chose to buy a product that they freely entered into suffered from harm when in the complaint the plaintiffs don’t challenge that it was a freely entered transaction for the class members?

            For example, what happens to the person that actually didn’t want cheese in its quarterpounder? Two things happened: He/she bought the item as offered or didn’t. Remember that this transaction is an express contract of sale of goods. How is this injurious to the class?

            uni-mitation

        • Redocbew
        • 1 year ago

        Now look what you did. I hope you’re happy buster.

          • Srsly_Bro
          • 1 year ago

          Thanks for the concern, bro.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 1 year ago

        Online-only offers are hardly exclusive to McDonald’s. I’m dumber for having read the complaint.

        • just brew it!
        • 1 year ago

        So once a restaurant offers a particular menu item, they are required to continue making that item available forever after (subject, of course, to continuing to have the ingredients on hand), at a comparable price relative to other items on the menu? That’s what you’re effectively asserting here, and IMO it’s a pretty ridiculous assertion.

    • uni-mitation
    • 1 year ago

    I identify as an Eskimo; I am triggered by your wanton disregard for our type of kissing! You need more diversity of kissing.

    uni-mitation

      • Redocbew
      • 1 year ago

      We all need more diversity of kissing.

      • UberGerbil
      • 1 year ago

      Dude, your kind of kissing is not only not disregarded, it’s portrayed in the photo.

        • uni-mitation
        • 1 year ago

        Sit down, I alone I am able to be outraged on behalf of my oppressed Eskimo brothers yearning to be free from the Imperialist yoke!

        /s

        uni-mitation

      • chuckula
      • 1 year ago

      [quote<]I identify as an Eskimo; [/quote<] I identify as Attack Helicopter! My version of kissing involves anti-tank missiles!

        • uni-mitation
        • 1 year ago

        Well, typically I identify as helicopter some days, but other days as a shopping cart, garbage bin, cardboard box, bookshelf, and some rare times as proud male lesbian transcendent. The world just isn’t as inclusive to our kind. It is simply micro-aggressions every single day. If only there were trigger warnings. *sigh*

        I support and understand your struggle. Let’s work to make this world more inclusive. I understand you were made by AMD?

        uni-mitation

    • LocalCitizen
    • 1 year ago

    it’s also fried chicken day. to not let anyone feel left out, i’ll just call it kiss fried chicken day

      • Waco
      • 1 year ago

      [url<]http://s3.amazonaws.com/busites_www/kissonline/content/articles/6cb46fa4f6ab98189a362bb3afb51106.jpg[/url<]

        • MOSFET
        • 1 year ago

        not enough thumbs — KISS saves The Colonel !!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This