Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros"

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> We'll see about that.  Your predictions have not really been too much
> >> on the spot.
> >
> > I've predicted that he would go to appeal if both district courts
> > dismiss on standing grounds, and he did.
> 
> Uh no, you _hoped_ for it.  [... blah blah ...] Your memory really 
> is a bit dim.  

Dak, dak, dak. But by this distiction, I've made no^H^Hfalse 
predictions. Your memory really is a bit dim.  

Or do you mean that this

------
Well, we'll see how the Judge Young will deal with the GPL and Wallace's
allegations.

If Judge Young in the IBM case reads and considers Wallace's 2nd Answer
Brief I am confident that the Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

If the Judge refuses to even read the plaintiff's Answer Brief as Judge
Tinder obviusly did then it's probably over.

There is an interesting 2003 case in which Judge Young was appealed to
the Seventh Circuit. In that case, the Seventh Circuit noted that a
predatory pricing allegation constitutes an allegation of antitrust
injury:

"An underlying question regarding this tying claim is whether the
plaintiffs have suffered an antitrust injurym as a result. Suits cannot
be brought under § 4 of the Clayton Act unless “a private party is
adversely affected by an anticompetitive aspect of the defendant’s
conduct.” Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 339
(1990) (citing Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 487) (emphasis in original).
Neither plaintiff claims that the prices that ProLiance charged for
the gas itself or its transportation were predatory, or that ProLiance
somehow injured its customers by charging excessive prices for either
gas transportation or gas.

. . . That the plaintiffs’ losses stem from this behavior and not
behavior that is anticompetitive, e.g., predatory pricing, means that
they cannot make a tying claim against ProLiance that can withstand a
motion to dismiss, since “the antitrust laws do not require the courts
to protect small businesses from the loss of profits due to continued
competition, but only against the loss of profits from practices
forbidden by the antitrust laws.” Cargill, 479 U.S. at 116; see also
Atl. Richfield, 495 U.S. at 340-41; Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 14. ";
Midwest Gas Services, Inc. v. Indiana Gas Co., 317 F.3d 703 (7th Cir.),
cert. denied, 540 U.S. 817 (2003)" 
------

was false prediction?

regards,
alexander.