Well, I'm reading it a second time today, and perhaps I was just in a very cross mood yesterday....

But while I'd agree that the justices and most learned counsel for both sides are mightily attempting to do their jobs well, nevertheless, in places both the argument and questions reminded me of the more metaphysical discourse in the Lords concerning Donaldson v. Beckett. That is, the amount of money that Microsoft should pay AT&T is wagered on the exact number of angels that can dance on the head of a golden disk drive. And incidentally, the amount of power that the CAFC should wield over foreign commerce is wagered on the thinginess of photons.

It more or less seemed that none of the vocal participants were comfortable enough with the physics and technology to make good abstractions.

Perhaps I'll feel better on second reading.