David Kastrup wrote: [...] > This is going to be cute. The problem with an appeal is that Wallace > does not merely have to get it right this time: he has to prove that > he got it right last time around, and the court just failed to notice.
Appellate court will review district court's grant of motion to dismiss de novo, accepting all the allegations in Wallace's complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Wallace. I'm pretty sure that dismissal "based on failure to allege an anticompetitive effect" will be reversed because "predatory pricing has the requisite anticompetitive effect" (ARCO). regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
