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

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Then there is no predatory pricing since RedHat is not selling below
> cost at all. 

RedHat sells support, delivery, and maintenance contracts on annual 
subscription bases. RedHat's GPL'd IP in pooled derivative and 
collective works is price-fixed at "no charge" and is available
gratis.
 
>              They are turning a profit.  

Which just proves "a dangerous probability" that RedHat will 
"recoup[ ] its investment in below-cost prices." Brooke Group, 509 
U.S. at 224. 

[...]

> But RedHat has no monopoly power in operating systems, 

True, but that's beside the point. Wallace doesn't claim violation 
of § 2 of the Sherman Act (Monopolizing trade a felony). His case 
is an action under § 1 of the Sherman Act (Trusts, etc., in 
restraint of trade illegal), not § 2. It has really nothing to do 
with monopoly power.

regards,
alexander.