|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 03:01 AM EDT |
Let me help you get your head back to where the light shines and you can see:
It has been argued many times that Motorola could not name one company that pays
the full 2.25% (opening offer) and thus to ask Microsoft 2.25% (as an opening
offer) is discriminatory.
What has been asked is for those who argue this is to provide ONE COMPANY that
has been given this 2.25% OPENING OFFER (that is given to everyone) and did NOT
attempt to negotiate.
Any company not negotiating would be expected to be paying the initial offering
of 2.25%.
Motorola cannot name one, ergo the conclusion is that every company negotiated.
So to prove that Motorola has been discriminatory against Microsoft all that is
required is the naming of ONE company that did not negotiate (and is not paying
2.25% - which must be true as no one is paying 2.25%).
So prove Motorola has been discriminatory against Microsoft by naming one such
company.
Any attempt at a politician's answer (ie to answer your own question or to
waffle on without answering it) will be have the response of Jeremy Paxman to
Michael Howard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI @ 2:37, 4:51, 5:28) -
the same question will be asked repeatedly until you answer it and not try to
wriggle out of it.
I'll go further - the more you wriggle and refuse to answer, the more the
conclusion must be that you cannot name one as there isn't one.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|