[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: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:59:07 +0200

Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <>,
> Alexander Terekhov  <> wrote:
> >Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other co-conspirators
> >in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill competition) by higher
> >prices of their subscription service contracts.
> >"A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained of are below an
> >appropriate measure of its rival's costs
> Red Hat's competitors can, like Red Hat, obtain the GNU and Linux
> software at no cost, so it's hard to see in what way their prices are
> below their rivals' costs.

So you invite Red Hat's competitors in operating system software IP to 
give up competing and join predatory price fixing GPL conspiracy in IP 
like, say, Novell? To quote Supremes (somewhat relevant):

"We decline the invitation. As the foregoing discussion makes plain, 
supra, at 117-118, predatory pricing is an anticompetitive practice 
forbidden by the antitrust laws. While firms may engage in the practice 
only infrequently, there is ample evidence suggesting that the practice 
does occur. 16  It would be novel indeed for a court to deny standing to 
a party seeking an injunction against threatened injury merely because 
such injuries rarely occur. 17  In any case, nothing in [479 U.S. 104, 
122] the language or legislative history of the Clayton Act suggests 
that Congress intended this Court to ignore injuries caused by such 
anticompetitive practices as predatory pricing."; CARGILL, INC. v. 
MONFORT OF COLORADO, INC., 479 U.S. 104 (1986)

If you mean competition in ancillary markets (NOT joining predatory 
price fixing GPL conspiracy in IP), that's beside the point because
Wallace's case is not about ancillary markets.


reply via email to

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