I have a feeling that you wouldn't be making this argument if the decision was reversed. The law is important, it's how we resolve disputes like this. But rulings can be disputed and one is not obligated to dismiss "Amazon's legal theories" from one's mind just because some legal body ruled one way or another.

As a reader, I am interested to hear exactly how Amazon claims these former employees violated its internal policies. The article's lack of curiosity is interesting.

While I agree with you in this instance, I think there are cases where the different opinions in a case are relevant, such as the majority and dissenting opinions in SCOTUS cases.