Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > "A. Vertical maximum price restraints are not per se unlawful.
> >
> > The essence of Plaintiff's Complaint appears to be directed at
> > Section 2(b) of the GPL, which requires licensees of GPL'd software
> > to license any derivative works they create at no charge. Assuming
> > for the sake of argument that Plaintiff has standing to bring this
> > Complaint, this agreement could be analogized to a vertical maximum
> > price restraint, i.e., a requirement by the licensor that the
> > licensee charge no more than X amount upon relicense."
> >
> >                                 -- FSF
> >
> > Can you read "price restraint" and "no more than X" (X == zero)?
> 
> Can you read "assuming for the sake of argument"?  

Oh dear, I have no problem to assume that Wallace has standing. :-)

See "STANDING ON SHAKY GROUND: THE STRANGELY ELUSIVE DOCTRINE OF 
ANTITRUST INJURY":

http://www.rdantitrustlaw.info/shaky.pdf "More generally, competitors
may never be heard to complain of artificially low prices unless they
are predatory, because it is only predatorily low prices that threaten
injury to competition.94 94) Id. at 339–40. The Court's discussion was
consistent with the Brunswick dictum on predatory pricing. See
Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 489 n.14 (where there is true predation (not
just uncomfortably aggressive price cutting), a competitor's lost
profits do count as antitrust injury, even though the predatory
practice temporarily benefits consumers)."

http://www.justia.us/us/495/328/case.html

"Although a vertical, maximum-price-fixing agreement is unlawful under 
1 of the Sherman Act, it does not cause a competitor antitrust injury 
unless it results in predatory pricing." -- U.S. Supreme Court

And Judge Tinder clearly erred. 

Hopefully Judge Young will do better.

regards,
alexander.