[Top][All Lists]

[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 20:28:27 +0100

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge wrote:
> maintains. The GPL is the conspiracy as Wallace sees
> things; it is a joint undertaking among users and creators

Wallace doesn't see users undertaking anything that he's 
complaining about.

> of derivative works to undercut the price of any potential
> rival. But the district judge dismissed the complaint, ruling
> that Wallace does not suffer antitrust injury, see Brunswick
> Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977),
> because he is a would-be producer rather than a consumer.
> Although antitrust law serves the interests of consumers
> rather than producers, the Supreme Court has permitted
> producers to initiate predatory-pricing litigation. See
> Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
> 509 U.S. 209 (1993); Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v.
> Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). This does not
> assist Williams, however, because his legal theory is
> faulty substantively.

Well, *Williams* legal theory may well be faulty substantively
and even worse.

Does anyone know anything about Williams legal theory? 



reply via email to

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