gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

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


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:24:01 +0200

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> 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

They amount to "substantial arguments" explaining to the appelate court
why the district court erred. 

> results you want.  You don't want to hear it when we explain it to

Try explaining what's wrong with Wallace's argument on injury. Can you?

regards,
alexander.


reply via email to

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