[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: John Hasler
Subject: Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 07:50:42 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov writes:
> As for proof, "A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained
> of are below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs

The marginal cost of production of copies of Linux is at most the cost of
pressing a DVD.  The marginal cost of granting a GPL license is zero.

> and (2) that the competitor had a reasonable prospect of recouping
> its investment in below cost prices."

David Kastrup wrote:
> Basically, the standard demands proving that the prices must be both
> below cost as well as profitable.

What they mean is that the plaintiff must prove that if the defendant
succeeded in driving him out of business with predatory pricing he would
subsequently be able to recoup the money he lost selling below cost by
selling at the elevated price he would be able to demand as a result of
having disposed of his competitor.

Of course, this is irrelevant because Linux vendors are not selling below
cost by any measure, nor are they competing with Wallace.

On Groklaw there was some speculation that Wallace had a legal advisor.
Perhaps we have found him.
John Hasler
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

reply via email to

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