David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> > That's all bullshit. The FSF simply managed to fool Judge Tinder > >> > that Wallace lacks standing. Tinder recorgnized that "Plaintiffââ¬â¢s > >> > Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be > >> > Granted" and that "Plaintiffââ¬â¢s Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth > >> > a > >> > Violation of the Rule of Reason", but he was fooled by FSF's "even > >> > if it were possible for Plaintiff to allege some harm to competition > >> > in the abstract, Plaintiff has not alleged antitrust injury to > >> > himself, and thus lacks standing." > >> > >> You have an interesting notion of "fooled". > > > > ----- > > Accompanying Injury > > [...] > > You are fond of your quotation bubbles, but they don't amount to the
They amount to "substantial arguments" explaining to the appelate court why the district court erred. > results you want. You don't want to hear it when we explain it to Try explaining what's wrong with Wallace's argument on injury. Can you? regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
