My comment has nothing to do with moral righteousness, merely legal correctness.

However, the idea that the InfoWars brand is worth less than $10 million is a bit silly to me given its reach among crazy (and highly manipulable) people, and the low size of both bids (and the fact that only people intimately involved in bankruptcy procedures knew when and how to put in bids) suggests that the auction process was probably not run correctly.

So where were all the other bidders offering $10 million plus?

Not there because the auction was run in a terrible way - it was very hard to submit a bid and the due date got moved forward at the last minute.

There were rumblings that Elon Musk was going to put in a big bid.

No but honestly who has any use for the Infowars brand besides Alex Jones and the Onion? What would anyone do with it to get a return on their investment?

I don't really know, but Elon Musk has been known to buy media companies that don't give him a good ROI, and he was making noise about putting a bid together on this one.

> and he was making noise about putting a bid together on this one.

The list of things Musk makes noise about but does not do gets a little longer.

The auctioneer should not have shifted the due date for bids after Elon Musk said this, and we would get a clear mark on that list.

If all parties were happy with a bid, why does it need to be run "fairly"? This isn't house auction offereing up an artifact, this is a man guilty in the court of law going bankrupt and divvying off his assets. If the people in charge of said divvying and the ones owed money are happy, who really cares?

All parties were not happy with the bid, which is why this went to a judge.

That's confusing. We know from the reporting that some parties were happy with the bid. I guess, you mean "not all parties were happy..."?

(Please note: this is not a case of ∀x ∈ X ¬P(x) ≣ ¬∀x ∈ X P(x). ∀x ∈ X ¬P(x) means "for all x not-P", while ¬∀x ∈ X P(x) reads "there exists no x that P", i.e. there is no party that is happy with the bid, which is either a false statement or not the intended meaning. This is actually a common, but not well-known mistake, so I'm pointing it out.)

EDIT: I even found a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_quantification

'All that glisters is not gold.' :)

but if we launder it through law talking then it cannot be questioned.