Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
