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

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> 
>    > "Although a vertical, maximum-price-fixing agreement is unlawful
>    > under 1 of the Sherman Act, it does not cause a competitor
>    > antitrust injury unless it results in predatory pricing." --
>    > U.S. Supreme Court
> 
>    You have yet to show that setting a price at zero is predatory
>    pricing. Just selling below cost is not by definition predatory.
> 
> He also has to show that the GPL actually sets a fixed price of zero
> (or anything else for that matter) for a work.

Hey paragon of intellect, please read the GPL 2 b). Oh, Ah, BTW, just 
in case***, I'll give you ninety-five percent of profits if you drop 
me a link to negatively priced GPL'd stuff.

regards,
alexander.

***) "There is no indication that in the unlikely event a licensor 
wished to license modifications to the GPL at a price below zero (i.e., 
an effective negative price by paying the licensee to take the license),
such would in any way violate the GPL. To the extent the GPL is
analogous to any type of price restraint, it would be no more than a
maximum vertical restrain subject to the rule of reason."

    -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP, (Wallace's) case 1:05-cv-00678-RLY-VSS