[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Subject: Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Again. Who'd guess.... ;)
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 20:28:46 +0100

Seg, 2006-05-22 às 20:23 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > 
> >
> > 
> >         The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern
> >         District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the FSF
> >         complaint, he found that Wallace didn't properly state a claim.
> >         He said he accepted the allegations as true but that Wallace
> >         didn't allege anticompetitive effects in an identifiable market

At least grant me the right to have facts straight... I said...

Seg, 2006-05-22 às 17:30 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escreveu:
>> *sigh* I guess judges just err and err, don't they Alex? You're the
>> only soldier boy saluting properly within thousands of bad performers
>> in the military parade, I suppose, to your parents.

I guess that really puts in a nice perspective what you replied to my email 

> The District Court is clearly in error. Predatory pricing has the 
> requisite anticompetitive effect (ARCO). The Appellate Court will 
> correct the district court's mistake.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]