Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): software applications, as well as because of the effort involved in learning the new system and transferring files to its format. Findings of Fact ¶ 20. The court also found the Apple system less appealing to consumers because it costs considerably more and supports fewer applications. Id. ¶ 21. Microsoft responds only by saying: “the district court’s market definition is so narrow that it excludes Apple’s Mac OS, which has competed with Windows for years, simply because the Mac OS runs on a different microprocessor.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 84. This general, conclusory statement falls far short of what is required to challenge findings as clearly erroneous. Pendleton v. Rumsfeld, 628 F.2d 102, 106 (D.C.Cir. 1980); see also Terry v. Reno, 101 F.3d 1412, 1415 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Microsoft neither points to evidence 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claims made but not argued in a brief are waived (B) holding issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived (C) holding that issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived (D) holding issues argued orally but not addressed in brief were waived (E) holding that issues not argued in initial brief are deemed waived
Output (English): holding issues argued orally but not addressed in brief were waived