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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> Got no answer or comment from GNUtians on gnu.misc.discuss ("license
> issue: calling a GPLv2 library" thread in which GNUtians try to scare
> OP into joining the GPL predarory price-fixing pooling conspiracy with
> his computer program which calls a GPLv2 library).
> 
> It's fun. Judge Young dismissed because according to him, Wallace "has
> not identified an anticompetitive effect".
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/b81437831e209017
> 
> And yet his colleague Judge Tinder had no problems with Wallace's
> identification of anticompetitive effect ("By making certain software
> programs available to users at no charge, the GPL may be discouraging
> developers from creating new and better programs because they will
> not receive compensation for their work, thereby reducing the number
> of quality programs available to users. This may be considered
> anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be inferred from what
> Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, this
> court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a claim for
> violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under the rule of reason
> doctrine").
> 
> http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-30.pdf
> 
> So one of them must have been drunk (in the sense of having somewhat
> distorted view of reality). No?

It appears that both Judges were totally drunk at some point. Judge
Tinder's perception of reality was in total malfunction when he 
basically told the Congress to replace copyright with copyleft:

"the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and 
the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of 
which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower 
prices, better access and more innovation."

http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-41.pdf
(referring to an article by uncharged co-conspirator at Montavista)

Same as Judge Young when he ruled that Wallace "failed to allege a 
cognizable antitrust injury" and yet admitted that "Wallace alleges 
that the Defendants’ “predatory price-fixing scheme prevents [him] 
from marketing his own computer operating system as a competitor.”"

So both Judges were drunk. At different times.

Hopefully appellate court will help them both to regain correct 
perception of reality re antitrust law.

regards,
alexander.