Well of course you disagree. I'm only pointing out that your blog post and your comment above don't represent a neutral view of the likely outcomes of this litigation given the evidence we have at hand. I'm not picking sides here, because I don't know any of the facts, and I'm not suggesting you're a bad person for your bias. Any of us would be equally biased in your shoes. I'm just trying to point out a more balanced view than what you're giving us. Truth-seeking, in other words.

Also, it's worth noting that a violent reaction to a business model being threatened is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, let's suppose someone is looting your shop. Do you allow them to do so, or do you take out the baseball bat behind the counter? If the looter said, "Hey, you're only getting out that bat because your business model is being threatened," that would probably not be compelling to you or to any bystanders that happened to be about.

Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that what you are doing is equivalent to looting. I'm only trying to point out that other readers ought not take your side simply because you think you're threatening someone's business model.

If I was your lawyer I'd tell you to stop blogging or commenting on HN immediately. You're about to lose big. Take it from someone who has had their word used against himself 10 years later.