Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference

[Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net>]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> It doesn't have to be the case for an action under 16 of the Clayton
> Act for threatened harm caused by violation of 1 of the Sherman Act
> to succeed.

Well, there is not much point in debating it: I suspect we'll have a
court ruling on the FSF's motion to dismiss his fourth amended complaint
soon enough.

> 
> 
>>Every mention of a "uncharged co-conspirator" is hillarious as well.
> 
> 
> Perhaps because you don't understand what it means as well. 

I understand what it means, and that's why I find it hillarious.