gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:07:24 +0200

dak replied...

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?

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> No.  It's been explained to you a few times, but you might have been
> drunk.  Judge Tinder tried reading a sensible interpretation into
> Wallace's ramblings (if you don't have a lawyer representing you,
> turning your gibberish into something comprehensible is largely the
> duty of the judge) and constructed something which was most likely to
> be the _legal_ essence of Wallace's complaint.  The result described
> in more appropriate terms what Wallace was supposed to be complaining
> about _if_ one did not want to assume that he was babbling nonsense in
> the first place.  This refined wording of Wallace's alleged complaint
> was then matched to the respective laws and it was found that even
> when a judge tried making the best case from the mess Wallace
> presented, the results simply were not sufficient for making enough of
> a complaint that pursuing the case would have made any sense.
> 
> That is pretty unexciting when the court is responsible for making
> Wallace's case.  The court tried to make his case as good as a lawyer
> would have made it, sort of "if there is any angle to the case, it
> must have been this".  Then it took a look at the results, and guess
> what: they still did not meet the requirements for proceeding, even
> when interpreted in the most favorable way.
> 
> That's all.

That's all bullshit. The FSF simply managed to fool Judge Tinder that 
Wallace lacks standing. Tinder recorgnized that "PlaintiffÂ’s Third 
Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted" and 
that "PlaintiffÂ’s Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth a Violation of the 
Rule of Reason", but he was fooled by FSF's "even if it were possible 
for Plaintiff to allege some harm to competition in the abstract, 
Plaintiff has not alleged antitrust injury to himself, and thus lacks 
standing."

Now go google standing.

regards,
alexander.


reply via email to

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