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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> There is no identifiable market.  
>
> That's not what the Judge said.

There is no identifiable market where the defendants would damage
Wallace by allegedly predatory pricing, because all markets in
question here are either not served by the defendants, not served by
Wallace, or are served in a profitable manner.  Wallace has failed to
identify a market where he would even _allege_ the required conditions
(never mind whether his allegations are wrong or right). And that's
exactly why Wallace's case has been thrown out.

Please specify which market you think this is supposed to be.  Up to
now you have only vaguely paraded "intellectual property" around.
Please specify _exactly_ what Wallace is supposed to be selling in the
presumed market.

> Yeah, of course, to GNUtians, there's no market in Wallace's case.

Well, if you think there _is_ an identifiable market in Wallace's
case, be free to actually specify it.  Whining is no substitute.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum