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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> 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?

Novell has quite different prices from RedHat.  So the price fixing
does not seem to be very effective.  To which you will repeat your
mantra that the price fixing is for the "IP", not individual copies,
glossing over the fact that all the parties _retain_ their copyright
and only sell copies.

So please state the "IP" which you claim is price-fixed at zero.  It
isn't the copyright, because the copyright isn't sold.  And it isn't
the copies because those are sold at widely different prices.

> To quote Supremes (somewhat relevant):

Totally and completely irrelevant.  It talks about the _frequency_ of
predatory pricing being irrelevant in litigating it.  But the
frequency of GPL use was never in debate.

> 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.

So what market is Wallace's case about according to you?  "IP" is not
a legal term.  Please state the market.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum