Alexander Terekhov wrote: > It doesn't have to be the case for an action under 16 of the Clayton > Act for threatened harm caused by violation of 1 of the Sherman Act > to succeed.
Well, there is not much point in debating it: I suspect we'll have a court ruling on the FSF's motion to dismiss his fourth amended complaint soon enough. > > >>Every mention of a "uncharged co-conspirator" is hillarious as well. > > > Perhaps because you don't understand what it means as well. I understand what it means, and that's why I find it hillarious. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
