[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 22:16:32 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > 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".  
> -----
> Accompanying Injury


You are fond of your quotation bubbles, but they don't amount to the
results you want.  You don't want to hear it when we explain it to
you, and you don't want to hear it when the court explains it to the
involved parties.  Tough.  Of course you are free to entertain your
own legal standards in your imagination.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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