[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:23:06 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> No.  It's been explained to you a few times, but you might have been
>> drunk.  Judge Tinder tried reading a sensible interpretation into
>> Wallace's ramblings (if you don't have a lawyer representing you,
>> turning your gibberish into something comprehensible is largely the
>> duty of the judge) and constructed something which was most likely to
>> be the _legal_ essence of Wallace's complaint.  The result described
>> in more appropriate terms what Wallace was supposed to be complaining
>> about _if_ one did not want to assume that he was babbling nonsense in
>> the first place.  This refined wording of Wallace's alleged complaint
>> was then matched to the respective laws and it was found that even
>> when a judge tried making the best case from the mess Wallace
>> presented, the results simply were not sufficient for making enough of
>> a complaint that pursuing the case would have made any sense.
>> That is pretty unexciting when the court is responsible for making
>> Wallace's case.  The court tried to make his case as good as a lawyer
>> would have made it, sort of "if there is any angle to the case, it
>> must have been this".  Then it took a look at the results, and guess
>> what: they still did not meet the requirements for proceeding, even
>> when interpreted in the most favorable way.
>> That's all.
> That's all bullshit. The FSF simply managed to fool Judge Tinder
> that Wallace lacks standing.  Tinder recorgnized that "Plaintiff’s
> Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be
> Granted" and that "Plaintiff’s Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth a
> Violation of the Rule of Reason", but he was fooled by FSF's "even
> if it were possible for Plaintiff to allege some harm to competition
> in the abstract, Plaintiff has not alleged antitrust injury to
> himself, and thus lacks standing."

You have an interesting notion of "fooled".  You'll find that every
court can be "fooled" by substantial arguments, regardless of how many
tantrums you throw.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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