language is plain, the sole function of the courts ... is to enforce it according to its terms.” Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 534, 124 S.Ct. 1023, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Section 192(a) prohibits “unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive” practices or devices. Section 192(b) prohibits “undue or unreasonable” preferences, advantages, or disadvantages. Neither section contains language limiting its application to only those acts or devices, which have an adverse effect on competition, such as “restraining commerce.” Under well-settled principles, courts must refrain from reading additional terms, such as those that would require an adverse effect on competition, into these sections. See Lamie, 540 U.S. at 538, 124 S.Ct. 1023 (<HOLDING>); see also Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23,
holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive holding that if the text evinces a plain nonabsurd meaning then the court should not read an absent word into the statute holding that an appellate court must give a statute its clear and plain meaning when the statute is unambiguous holding that absent unusual circumstances this court must apply the plain meaning of a statute