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

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Why would I need to?  Up to now they appear perfectly capable of
> reading the law.

Oh really?

The District Court ruled (emphasis added):

"Wallace ALLEGES that the Defendants’ “PREDATORY PRICE-fixing scheme 
 prevents [him] from marketing his own computer operating system as a 
 competitor.” His complaint fails because it FAILS TO ALLEGE
 ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS in an identifiable market. Car Carriers, 
 Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 745 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir. 1984) (affirming 
 dismissal based on FAILURE TO ALLEGE AN ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECT). . . 
 Because he has not identified an ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECT, Wallace has 
 failed to allege a cognizable antitrust injury"

Yet the Supreme Court explicitly ruled:

"Antitrust injury does not arise for purposes of § 4 of the Clayton 
 Act until a private party is adversely affected by an anticompetitive 
 aspect of the defendant's conduct; in the context of pricing practices, 
 only PREDATORY PRICING HAS THE REQUISITE ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECT"; 
 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. USA PETROLEUM CO., 495 U.S. 328 (1990)

This legal schizophrenia is kind of scary when you think of the 
innocent people convicted by US legal system.

regards,
alexander.