As to the second question, feel free to browse my comment history.
the only really relevant ones I saw were about attorney-client privilege, where you were 100% right. I saw nothing much about antitrust.
"fair" and "reasonable" definitions probably suffer because there aren't that many antitrust cases tried, period.
So I’ve had all the training, worked with some talented attorneys, and been directly involved in related decisions - though not the ones being called into question here.
Which is by definition after it had occurred. Which is my point on retroactive.
Jurisprudence is about establishing consistent interpretations of those words. The point of "legal certainty" is that an ordinary citizen can predict what will and won't be judged fair and reasonable. "Courts have ruled" is what you go by. The Supreme Court in whatever country is the final judge of that.
If your point is that it's inconsistent, that's trivially true. Human beings are involved.
After this exchange, I thought of a use that's been reduced to one syllable: FRAND, for "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory."
