[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:15:22 +0200

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Qua, 2006-07-05 Ã s 15:47 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > [...]
> > > You refuse to answer this simple question? I merely want to understand
> > > you better...
> >
> > Intellectual property is, without question, property. See Stewart v.
> > Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 219 (1990), Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S.
> > 986 (1984), etc. I respect your right to be stupid. 42 is the answer
> > to life, the universe, and everything.
> So I guess I'll take that as a yes.
> So if you think that way, why doesn't it, in Wallace vs FSF, have any
> value when the Judge says the GNU GPL fosters innovation?

The district Judge was drunk. 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."
(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. Hopefully appellate court will help them 
both to regain correct perception of reality re antitrust law.


reply via email to

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