[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;) |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:49:27 +0100 |
< misc.int-property added >
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> appealing this dismissal is not going to be too easy, ...
Oh really? Judge Tinder just made a dull point that "... reduced
opportunity as a competitor does not necessarily equate to an
antitrust injury as recognized by the courts. Brunswick, 429 U.S.
at 488. Indeed, injury in fact is a different beast than
antitrust injury. Profl Sports Ltd. Pship v. Natl Basketball
Assoc., 961 F.2d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 1992). And whenever the
plaintiff and consumers have divergent rather than congruent
interests, there is a potential problem in finding antitrust
injury. . . . When the plaintiff is a poor champion of consumers,
a court must be especially careful not to grant relief that may
undercut the proper functions of antitrust. Ball Meml Hosp., Inc.
v. Mutual Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1334 (7th Cir. 1986).
Mr. Wallace has not alleged that anyone interfered with his
freedom to compete in computer software market by creating his
own operating system, one perhaps with features different from,
or in addition to, that of the GNU/Linux operating system. Indeed,
Mr. Wallace has that ability, regardless of whether the GPL is in
force or not." and failed to address Wallace's arguments on proper
antitrust injury.
I suggest you go read
http://www.rdantitrustlaw.info/shaky.pdf
"This article deals with the ... doctrine of antitrust injury, a
concept that the lower courts have often found difficult to
understand and apply."
I don't think that Judge Tinder has understood and applied it
properly in Wallace's case given that Wallace has alleged
predatory pricing to begin with.
"More generally, competitors may never be heard to complain of
artificially low prices unless they are predatory, because it is
only predatorily low prices that threaten injury to competition.94
94) Id. at 33940. The Courts discussion was consistent with the
Brunswick dictum on predatory pricing. See Brunswick, 429 U.S. at
489 n.14 (where there is true predation (not just uncomfortably
aggressive price cutting), a competitors lost profits do count as
antitrust injury, even though the predatory practice temporarily
benefits consumers)."
regards,
alexander.
- Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/03/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/03/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/03/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/03/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;),
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/03/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/03/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/03/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/03/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/03/21
- Message not available
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/03/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/03/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/03/27
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/03/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/03/24