[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>-------------------- >>In the >>United States Court of Appeals >>For the Seventh Circuit >>____________ >>No. 06-2454 >>DANIEL WALLACE, >>Plaintiff-Appellant, >>v. >>INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES >>CORPORATION; RED HAT, INC.; and >>NOVELL, INC., >>Defendants-Appellees. > > The short version can be summed up by this sentence from the opinion: > "This does not assist Williams, however, because his legal theory is > faulty substantively."
The opinion only mentions "Williams" in that sentence. Is this a typo for "Wallace"? -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
