It didnt hurt them. The link was relevant but non competing. For example: Christmas related but different products. An argument can be made relevant links can help. Even Bruce Clay has stated this theory in his seminars and classes. The bottom line is the burden of proof of it being damaging rests on the plaintiff. A link on a links relevant to the topic of the page, and even more relevant to the topic than other OBL's on the same page doesnt damage the websites credibility. The simple fact is the only would be knowing the algo and if it really does hurt. Since that is propietary to the SE's there is no way to prove it does actually hurt.
Rankings are not a right but rather a privledge. The same goes for
PR. This has already been precedence in previous cases. The simple fact that rankings can come and go without your control is evidence enough.
SEO is a means of "TRYING" to acheive better rankings but it is not guaranteed nor controllable. Then add to the fact, their rankings and
PR have only increased or stayed the same through my tenure with them will make it very diffuclt for them prove with "Clear and Concise Evidence"
Their theories rest on the fact that their expert testimony believes PageRank is the main factor to rankings which is totally inaccurate. Havent all
PR dinosaurs died already?
DMC