gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:23:06 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> No.  It's been explained to you a few times, but you might have been
>> drunk.  Judge Tinder tried reading a sensible interpretation into
>> Wallace's ramblings (if you don't have a lawyer representing you,
>> turning your gibberish into something comprehensible is largely the
>> duty of the judge) and constructed something which was most likely to
>> be the _legal_ essence of Wallace's complaint.  The result described
>> in more appropriate terms what Wallace was supposed to be complaining
>> about _if_ one did not want to assume that he was babbling nonsense in
>> the first place.  This refined wording of Wallace's alleged complaint
>> was then matched to the respective laws and it was found that even
>> when a judge tried making the best case from the mess Wallace
>> presented, the results simply were not sufficient for making enough of
>> a complaint that pursuing the case would have made any sense.
>> 
>> That is pretty unexciting when the court is responsible for making
>> Wallace's case.  The court tried to make his case as good as a lawyer
>> would have made it, sort of "if there is any angle to the case, it
>> must have been this".  Then it took a look at the results, and guess
>> what: they still did not meet the requirements for proceeding, even
>> when interpreted in the most favorable way.
>> 
>> That's all.
>
> That's all bullshit. The FSF simply managed to fool Judge Tinder
> that Wallace lacks standing.  Tinder recorgnized that "Plaintiff’s
> Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be
> Granted" and that "Plaintiff’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".  You'll find that every
court can be "fooled" by substantial arguments, regardless of how many
tantrums you throw.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]