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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> 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.

Well, they are perfectly capable of reading, as opposed to you.
Wallace can allege all he wants to, but he fails to allege
anticompetitive effects in an identifiable market.

There is no identifiable market.  That's one of the main problems.  I
pointed out already to you that if he is out for selling his
copyright, the defendants are the wrong people to sue since they don't
even sell their copyright.  And if he is out for licensing copies,
there are no anticompetitive effects going on, since the defendants
are turning profits in those markets, and thus are competitive.

So what in your opinion is the identifiable market?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum