Let's just examine the entire opinion, shall we?  Excluding the title page, it consists of 32 pages.  The first 6 pages lay a foundation of the case explaining the basic principles of the business.  Of the remaining 26 pages, 16 concern justification of Tyson's use of marketing agreements.  That sure seems to be a lot considering that is not what the case was about in the first place! 

The case was about Tyson using marketing agreements to lower the cash price of fat cattle, not whether or not Tyson had any valid uses for marketing agreements.  Judge Strom commented that, "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices paid for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."  That only took up one paragraph.

The real reason Pickett lost the case, and Agman knows this, is that the court did not take any of the jury's finding or even Strom's own comments into consideration as, at the urging of Tyson's lawyers, it was ruled that "in order to suceed on a claim under PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition".  In layman's terms, as long as Tyson's use of marketing agreements does not give them a leg up on other packers, whether or not they screwed producers doesn't matter.

According to this court, the PSA only applies between packers.  John Tyson himself could of sat his fat arse in the chair and bragged how he hosed Pickett over, but as long as it didn't affect any other packers negetively, it would not of changed the outcome one bit. 

You've sure got a lot to brag on, Agman.  Hell of a victory. :roll: