[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: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:08:59 +0200

David Kastrup wrote:
> But RedHat does not sell its copyright, it merely licenses copies of

RedHat licenses IP rights in (GPL'd) WORKS. RedHat doesn't "licenses 
copies" (of GPL'd works).

> the copyrighted material.  The "intangible intellectual property
> assets" remain in the possession of RedHat.  

You're either genuinely retarded or just purport to be. The title to 
GPL'd IP (apart from stuff they regularly assign to the FSF) does
remain in the possession of RedHat. But the case is about licensing.

5.5      Cross-licensing and pooling arrangements

      Cross-licensing and pooling arrangements are agreements of two 
or more owners of different items of intellectual property to license 
one another or third parties. 
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [Wallace: "... third parties ... The 
stated purpose of the GPL license is to pool intellectual property. 
(“[t]he distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this 
License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire 
whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.”) 
(Ex A (GPL) at 3)).]


      Cross-licensing and pooling arrangements can have anticompetitive 
effects ... When cross-licensing or pooling arrangements are mechanisms 
to accomplish naked price fixing or market division, they are subject 
to challenge under the per se rule. See United States v. New Wrinkle, 
Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952) (price fixing).


Another possible anticompetitive effect of pooling arrangements may 
occur if the arrangement deters or discourages participants from 
engaging in research and development, thus retarding innovation. For 
example, a pooling arrangement that requires members to grant 
licenses to each other for current and future technology at minimal 
cost may reduce the incentives of its members to engage in research 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [See Judge Tinders ruling before he
got drunk (in a sense) -- the one about anticompetitive effect 
he reasonably inferred from by Wallace's complaint and allegations]

and development because members of the pool have to share their 
successful research and development and each of the members can 
free ride on the accomplishments of other pool members.


reply via email to

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