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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> 
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> > That's all bullshit. The FSF simply managed to fool Judge Tinder
>> >> > that Wallace lacks standing.  Tinder recorgnized that 
>> >> > "Plaintiff’s
>> >> > Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be
>> >> > Granted" and that "Plaintiff’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."
>> >>
>> >> You have an interesting notion of "fooled".
>> >
>> > -----
>> > Accompanying Injury
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> You are fond of your quotation bubbles, but they don't amount to
>> the
>
> They amount to "substantial arguments" explaining to the appelate
> court why the district court erred.

Given your track record so far, I prefer waiting for the appellate
court itself to state its findings.

>> results you want.  You don't want to hear it when we explain it to
>
> Try explaining what's wrong with Wallace's argument on injury. Can
> you?

There are so many things wrong that one does not know where to begin.
Wallace purports to want to compete with some BSD-derived operating
system offering.  But there are free and reputable competitors in that
market segment already without the GPL needing to price-fix anything.
His offering is dead on arrival regardless of the GPL.

Then there is no predatory pricing since RedHat is not selling below
cost at all.  They are turning a profit.  And the reason they are
turning a profit is exactly because they went with free software:
that's what got them their customer base.  It is an integral part of
their business plan.  They have the best value proposition, and that's
what continues to give them _paying_ customers.  The only way to argue
that they have to split their purported business models and turn a
profit in each of the _dependent_ market segments independently, is
when they have monopoly power in one market segment and use that to
compensate losses in an other segment in order to stifle competition.

But RedHat has no monopoly power in operating systems, neither in
general, nor of the Unixy type, nor of the Linux family.

You won't, of course, accept this kind of reasoning from me and will
try to smother it in heaps of non-relevant quotations.  And you won't
accept the findings of the appellate court ultimately.  Instead you
will update your quotation base with a few select out-of-context
quotes which indicate to nobody but yourself that everything has gone
wrong.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum