Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> > > > Intellectual property is, without question, property. See Stewart v.
> > > > Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 219 (1990), Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S.
> > > > 986 (1984), etc. I respect your right to be stupid. 42 is the answer
> > > > to life, the universe, and everything.
> > >
> > > So I guess I'll take that as a yes.
> > >
> > > So if you think that way, why doesn't it, in Wallace vs FSF, have any
> > > value when the Judge says the GNU GPL fosters innovation?
> >
> > The district Judge was drunk. Judge Tinder's perception of reality was
> > in total malfunction when he basically told the Congress to replace
> > copyright with copyleft:
> >
> > "the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and
> > the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of
> > which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower
> > prices, better access and more innovation."
> >
> > http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-41.pdf
> > (referring to an article by uncharged co-conspirator at Montavista)
> >
> > Same as Judge Young when he ruled that Wallace "failed to allege a
> > cognizable antitrust injury" and yet admitted that "Wallace alleges
> > that the Defendants’ “predatory price-fixing scheme prevents [him]
> > from marketing his own computer operating system as a competitor.”"
> >
> > So both Judges were drunk. Hopefully appellate court will help them
> > both to regain correct perception of reality re antitrust law.
> 
> Ok, so I understand your reasoning. If the ruling is agreeable to you,

I've directed you to the rulings by US Supreme Court.

> then it is valid for forcing your warped reality upon everyone else.
> 
> But if the ruling is not agreeable to you, then the Judge is drunk.

The ruling was defective. And stupid blanked assertion regarding the
GPL fostering innovation did make it any better.

regards,
alexander.