[Top][All Lists]

[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: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:59:39 +0100

David Kastrup wrote:
> So you feel unable to face the facts.  

The fact is that the GPL price-fixes IP at zero. The fact is that 
zero is below cost of IP creation and hence is predatory. As for the 


      1. Actionable "antitrust injury" is an injury of the type the 
antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which 
makes defendants' acts unlawful. Injury, although causally related to 
an antitrust violation, will not qualify unless it is attributable to 
an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny, since it is 
inimical to the antitrust laws to award damages for losses stemming 
from continued competition. Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 
479 U.S. 104, 109 -110. P. 334

      2. A vertical, maximum-price-fixing conspiracy in violation of 1 
of the Sherman Act must result in predatory pricing to cause a competitor 
antitrust injury. Pp. 335-341."

> Thanks for making this obvious.
> You shouldn't complain, however, that the judge in this case has _not_
> like you ignored the plain facts.

Judge Tinder clearly erred.


reply via email to

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