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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> 
>> http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm
>> 
>>         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
>
> 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.

Oh, I am pretty sure the appelate court will be "clearly in error",
too.  And whatever other courts Wallace chooses to pester with his
inability to make a case.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum