> involve the actual letter of the law not being flouted but agreeing with the commissions convoluted approach of discretionary parsing of the devices sold in a 10 year period and associated success or failure of other competitors etc etc...
Those details don't change anything like they could in common law. If the law encompasses ALL of those details and outlines what should be done. And that is what is done. If those were not covered by the RELEVANT law, the result would not be this one. Note that - there still would be a result. Because if they werent covered by that particular law, there would be another, larger-scope law that covers those.
Again, this is a matter of Angloamericans being used to their feudal legal system in which one can sly his or her way out of things by nitpicking and arguing on details. You people are so used to that mentality that you cant break that framework. Leading to arguments like yours.