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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> They won't be the last rabbits you imagine seeing.
>
> What part in "predatory pricing has the requisite anticompetitive 
> effect" (ARCO) don't you understand, dear GNUtian dak?

It depends on _what_ you price in _what_ market in competition to
_what_, dear legal fuzzhead.

IBM does not even sell Linux operating systems, so they can hardly be
accused of "predatory pricing" them.  If you want to call them on
predatory pricing anything, it is the work of their developers on
Linux.

So Wallace would have needed to claim that he wants to work for pay as
a developer on Linux in the areas that IBM is working on, and that IBM
provides this sort of work for dumping prices so that nobody else can
get a foot in the market.

But that is not what Wallace complains about.  He complains about
Linux competing with imaginary products of his, and IBM does offer any
such competing products.

> Sorry, I just can't understand. Help me please.
>
> The judge admits that Wallace alleges predatory pricing and yet
> dismisses "based on failure to allege an anticompetitive effect".
>
> I don't follow.

You wouldn't.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum