David Kastrup wrote: [...] > >> We'll see about that. Your predictions have not really been too much > >> on the spot. > > > > I've predicted that he would go to appeal if both district courts > > dismiss on standing grounds, and he did. > > Uh no, you _hoped_ for it. [... blah blah ...] Your memory really > is a bit dim.
Dak, dak, dak. But by this distiction, I've made no^H^Hfalse predictions. Your memory really is a bit dim. Or do you mean that this ------ Well, we'll see how the Judge Young will deal with the GPL and Wallace's allegations. If Judge Young in the IBM case reads and considers Wallace's 2nd Answer Brief I am confident that the Motion to Dismiss will be denied. If the Judge refuses to even read the plaintiff's Answer Brief as Judge Tinder obviusly did then it's probably over. There is an interesting 2003 case in which Judge Young was appealed to the Seventh Circuit. In that case, the Seventh Circuit noted that a predatory pricing allegation constitutes an allegation of antitrust injury: "An underlying question regarding this tying claim is whether the plaintiffs have suffered an antitrust injurym as a result. Suits cannot be brought under § 4 of the Clayton Act unless a private party is adversely affected by an anticompetitive aspect of the defendants conduct. Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 339 (1990) (citing Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 487) (emphasis in original). Neither plaintiff claims that the prices that ProLiance charged for the gas itself or its transportation were predatory, or that ProLiance somehow injured its customers by charging excessive prices for either gas transportation or gas. . . . That the plaintiffs losses stem from this behavior and not behavior that is anticompetitive, e.g., predatory pricing, means that they cannot make a tying claim against ProLiance that can withstand a motion to dismiss, since the antitrust laws do not require the courts to protect small businesses from the loss of profits due to continued competition, but only against the loss of profits from practices forbidden by the antitrust laws. Cargill, 479 U.S. at 116; see also Atl. Richfield, 495 U.S. at 340-41; Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 14. "; Midwest Gas Services, Inc. v. Indiana Gas Co., 317 F.3d 703 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 817 (2003)" ------ was false prediction? regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
