[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:54:00 +0100 |
Yet another proof of GPL's amazing power to moronize people, even
EASTERBROOK's caliber. His somewhat curious view on the GPL mechanics,
Linux, and narrow view on predatory pricing recoupment theory (not
quite inline with CONCLUSIONS OF LAW in MS case regarding zero priced
IE to begin with) aside for a moment, the allegation of IP output
reduction was made pretty clearly. His (lower ranked) fellow Judge
Tinder in the FSF action (which was claimed by the Defendants-Appellees
to somehow estopp Wallace) managed to notice reduction when he found
that Wallace's "Complaint states a claim for violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, under the rule of reason doctrine":
"To establish a Section 1 claim under the rule of reason test, a
plaintiff must prove that "(1) ... (4)" Tunis Bros. Co. v. Ford Motor
Co., 952 F.2d 715, 722 (3d Cir. 1991). In this case, it appears that
Mr. Wallace has made the necessary allegations of FSF's unlawful
contract and conduct. In his Third Amended Complaint, he specifically
alleges that FSF conspired with others, including International
Business Machines Corporation, Red Hat Inc. and Novell Inc., to
control the price of available software within a defined market
through the GPL. Primarily at issue in FSF's motion is whether
Mr. Wallace has adequately alleged that the GPL had a resulting
anticompetitive effect.
[... reduction in IP output under GPL price-dumping conspiracy ...]
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."
How EASTERBROOK can possibly think that zero price ("marginal cost"
of duplication) will recoup non-zero fixed cost of IP creation is
also beyond my understanding. He must be smoking something. Or was
he drunken? Hey dak, any thoughts? I'm at loss, help me out! ;-) ;-)
regards,
alexander.
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim, Lee Hollaar, 2006/11/09
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/11/09