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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> This is going to be cute.  The problem with an appeal is that Wallace
>> does not merely have to get it right this time: he has to prove that
>> he got it right last time around, and the court just failed to notice.
>
> Appellate court will review district court's grant of motion to dismiss 
> de novo, accepting all the allegations in Wallace's complaint as true 
> and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Wallace.
>
> I'm pretty sure that dismissal "based on failure to allege an 
> anticompetitive effect" will be reversed because "predatory pricing 
> has the requisite anticompetitive effect" (ARCO). 

Well, first predatory pricing _as_ _defined_ would have to be shown.

One fallacy here is that "predatory pricing" requires "pricing" in the
first place, and the parties _participating_ in GPLed software
development are not free to set the "price for intellectual property":
this is fixed by the upstream license.  Adhering to license terms is
not prohibited and does not form a conspiracy, or all law-abiding
citizens would be in a conspiracy.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum