Each Trump lawsuit against a social medium ICS is moronic. He needed to find a lawyer, who
1. specializes in Title 47 (telecommunications service and information service),
2. knows common carriage law, and
3. understands Internet/WWW technology along with common carriage caselaw that pertains to a PSPDN — the Internet is a PSPDN as well as an obvious place of public accommodation.

An older X.25 PSPDN never quite qualified to be a place of public accommodation because it never met the definition of 42 U.S. Code § 2000a (b). The data rate offered by an older X.25 PSPDN was never quite high enough, but there was a more serious design flaw that pertained to the architecture of an X.25 PSPDN and that prevented the resource-sharing necessary for the X.25 PSPDN to become a place of public accommodation.

Noah, which is an outrageously ignorant decision, was not fully litigated. The Noah Court is often reversed when a patent case over which this specific Court presides goes to the CAFC. This Court receives more favorable treatment in the 4th Circuit, but such treatment reflects badly on the 4th Circuit, which used the logical inverse fallacy to decide Zeran. I recommend Shammas v. Lee, 187 F. Supp. 3d 659, E.D. Va for a laugh. It did not take SCOTUS long to dispose of this fee shifting nonsense when the issue finally came before SCOTUS in Peter v. Nantkwest.

I admit that I am being harsh. I hate reading a decision in which there appears a word like “relatedly” or a phrase like “pellucidly clear”.