Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> This is going to be cute.  The problem with an appeal is that Wallace
> does not merely have to get it right this time: he has to prove that
> he got it right last time around, and the court just failed to notice.

Appellate court will review district court's grant of motion to dismiss 
de novo, accepting all the allegations in Wallace's complaint as true 
and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Wallace.

I'm pretty sure that dismissal "based on failure to allege an 
anticompetitive effect" will be reversed because "predatory pricing 
has the requisite anticompetitive effect" (ARCO). 

regards,
alexander.