[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 16:14:07 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You can't sell "intellectual property"
> Bzzt. Copyright (refs to patents in Wallace's case aside for a moment) 
> is a form of property which, like physical property, can be bought or 
> sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise transferred, wholly or in part.

It can be transferred.  Let us assume for the sake of argument that
this is what Wallace is talking about.

Then he needs to present a business plan where he is _selling_ his
copyright to somebody who wants it.  Namely his plan has to include
being bought out by an investor.  He did not present such a plan.  And
apart from that, RedHat and IBM are not competing with him in selling
copyright: if you take a look at the contributions by RedHat, FSF and
IBM, you will notice that they _retain_ their copyright and don't give
it away.  Read the copyright notices.

So if "selling intellectual property" is his business plan, the
defendants don't even compete in that business.  Because they don't
sell their intellectual property, but license it.

So take your pick.  Either the licensing business is, as you claim,
"ancillary", in which case the defendants are not in competition in
the alleged non-ancillary market of "selling intellectual property",
or it isn't, in which case they unfortunately happen to run a
profitable business in that area, defying the "predatory" angle.

In either case, Wallace's case falls apart because of not meeting the
basic criteria for his claims.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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