Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > That's copyleft logic, not copyright.
> 
> Believe what you will.

Hey dak, just FYI, I've suggested to Wallace to go for an en banc 
hearing and simply submit

http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/10/gpl_wallace_appeal/
(GPL passes bizarro world anti-trust test)

with

http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2006/11/the_gpl_doesnt.html
(by Matt Asay, Director, Linux Business Office, Novell)

asking for confirmation from all the members of 7th appellate court 
whether they ALL live in a bizarro world together with prolific and 
learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook. (And if they will answer "yes" 
then ask the same question in a petition to the Supreme Court.) Thus 
far, Wallace replied "why intercede" pointing to the recent MS-Novell 
development suggesting the death of free software being crushed under 
the weight of thousands Microsoft patents in a competitive "growing, 
not shrinking" (according to Chief Judge) operating system market. 
If anyone sues Microsoft under Sherman section 2, Microsoft will 
simply point to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision and 
claim "competition is flourishing in the defined market". Will a 
district court judge defy an esteemed jurist of the calibre of Judge 
Easterbrook in the antitrust arena? You gotta hand it to Judge 
Easterbrook. He is a great judge of free and continuing competitive 
markets.

regards,
alexander.