Agman, you know as I that to get a judgement as a matter of law there has to be no dispute as to the facts and their legal/illegality.  The question was whether Tyson used marketing agreements illegally, not whether or not they could be used legitimately at any time.  Your whole argument rests upon this assumption which is nothing other than a slight of hand.  We have all seen this tactic in arguments on this board.  Judges should be able to catch this but maybe you can tell us what was going on with Strom.

Here is a fairly understandable discussion of rule 56:

The judge decided the case on a slight of hand.  It had nothing to do with the proper use of rule 56.  He should know better.  Guns don't kill, people who use them do.  The gun lobby has already been successful on this point and it too is written in law (in the constitution).