[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, 19 May 2006 11:45:44 +0200

David Kastrup wrote:
> "IP value based business model" is waffling about things.  Just what
> does he want to sell to whom?

Suppose he wants to become an Apple (but without music and hardware 
business) and compete with other operating systems (not only on Macs). 

> Anyway, so he finds that thereis already a market of operating systems
> where hundreds of people compete by virtue of a cooperative business


> model, and he wants to have both cooperation and competition outlawed

Thus far, he wants to have only the GPL outlawed and that would put 
the GPL'd code into quasi public domain (the penalty for copyright 
misuse) at least in Indiana.

> in order to have a chance of marketing an inferior product which does
> not yet exist?

And how do you know that his product is inferior or that it doesn't 

> Why should the court feel they have to accommodate his wishes for
> anticompetitive measures?

What "anticompetitive measures"? The court should just apply the 
antitrust law to GPL predatory price fixing conspiracy.


> So he wants to capitalize on the work of others without contributing
> back 

Not necessarily without contributing back.

>      and sues against people who don't allow their work to get
> accosted in that manner.

He's against "contributing back" under unlawful copyleft terms.

> So it is not his own IP he wants to sell, but that of others which is
> freely available to him, 

Not only to him. The same IP is available to others as well.

>                          and he wants to prohibit people making stuff
> freely available to others since this ruins his market.

He doesn't want to prohibit people making stuff freely available 
to others under lawful non-copyleft terms.

> Really, it takes a Terekhov to make an even more outrageously stupid
> case than Wallace tried doing himself.

dak, dak, dak. 

You're arguing against a caricature of his case, and not his case itself.


reply via email to

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