[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Again. Who'd guess.... ;)
From: |
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra |
Subject: |
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Again. Who'd guess.... ;) |
Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2006 20:28:46 +0100 |
Seg, 2006-05-22 às 20:23 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
>
> 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
At least grant me the right to have facts straight... I said...
Seg, 2006-05-22 às 17:30 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escreveu:
>> *sigh* I guess judges just err and err, don't they Alex? You're the
>> only soldier boy saluting properly within thousands of bad performers
>> in the military parade, I suppose, to your parents.
I guess that really puts in a nice perspective what you replied to my email
with:
> 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.
q.e.d.
RUi
signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente