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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> But Wallace brought forth no facts whatsoever compatible with his
>> claim of predatory pricing as defined by the requisite laws.
>
> Wallace brought forth the GPL. The GPL is his evidence.

Yes.  No facts compatible with his claim of predatory pricing.  IBM is
supposed to be guilty of heeding a license?  And the judge is supposed
to admit that as a case?

> Predatory pricing
>
> The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum
> price of intellectual property at “no charge” removes all motive to
> compete. The Supreme Court has analyzed predatory pricing in a Sherman
> Act § 1 civil action:
>
> “…[T]his is a Sherman Act 1 case. For purposes of this case, it is
> enough to note that respondents have not suffered an antitrust injury
> unless petitioners conspired to drive respondents out of the relevant
> markets by (i) pricing below the level necessary to sell their products,
> or (ii) pricing below some appropriate measure of cost.” MATSUSHITA
> ELEC. INDUSTRIAL CO. v. ZENITH RADIO, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [fn8].

But Redhat is not pricing below the level necessary to sell their
product, they are turning a profit.  And IBM is not selling Linux.
And there are dozens of companies competing by offering Linux
distributions, while there is just one company offering Windows.  The
facts don't match the claims.

There is no case here.

[Further Wallace rubbish elided]

> He he, Marxist-Leninist.

Well, whether you like the prose of Wallace or not for whatever
reason, it does not constitute a valid legal argument.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum