[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;) |
Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2006 10:59:07 +0200 |
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <446F60ED.C5A8F9CD@web.de>,
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
>
> >Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other co-conspirators
> >in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill competition) by higher
> >prices of their subscription service contracts.
>
> >"A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained of are below an
> >appropriate measure of its rival's costs
>
> Red Hat's competitors can, like Red Hat, obtain the GNU and Linux
> software at no cost, so it's hard to see in what way their prices are
> below their rivals' costs.
So you invite Red Hat's competitors in operating system software IP to
give up competing and join predatory price fixing GPL conspiracy in IP
like, say, Novell? To quote Supremes (somewhat relevant):
"We decline the invitation. As the foregoing discussion makes plain,
supra, at 117-118, predatory pricing is an anticompetitive practice
forbidden by the antitrust laws. While firms may engage in the practice
only infrequently, there is ample evidence suggesting that the practice
does occur. 16 It would be novel indeed for a court to deny standing to
a party seeking an injunction against threatened injury merely because
such injuries rarely occur. 17 In any case, nothing in [479 U.S. 104,
122] the language or legislative history of the Clayton Act suggests
that Congress intended this Court to ignore injuries caused by such
anticompetitive practices as predatory pricing."; CARGILL, INC. v.
MONFORT OF COLORADO, INC., 479 U.S. 104 (1986)
If you mean competition in ancillary markets (NOT joining predatory
price fixing GPL conspiracy in IP), that's beside the point because
Wallace's case is not about ancillary markets.
regards,
alexander.
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), (continued)
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), John Hasler, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Richard Tobin, 2006/05/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), John Hasler, 2006/05/21
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;),
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/22