[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
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/17
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;),
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/06/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/06/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/06/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/06/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/06/22