Re: [FYI] DANGEROUS LIAISONS – SOFTWARECOMBINATIONS AS DERIVATIVE WORKS?

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > The Prof. seems to be totally unaware of "Wallace v GPL"
> 
> Uh, nobody who wants to be taken seriously will sully himself by
> mentioning a lawsuit from a private person without legal support who
> is incapable of even stating a claim in multiple attempts.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How many times do you want me to quote Tinder, retard?

http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace-case-FAQ-for-dummies-v1.9.txt

------
that Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief
can be Granted and that Plaintiff's Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth a
Violation of the Rule of Reason (but, unfortunately, being in a partially
drunk condition, he was fooled by the FSF to believe that Plaintiff Has Not
Alleged Antitrust Injury). Judge Tinder ruled: "To establish a Section 1
claim under the rule of reason test, a plaintiff must prove that "(1)
that the defendants contracted, combined, or conspired among each other;
(2) that the combination or conspiracy produced adverse, anti-competitive
effects within relevant product and geographic markets; (3) that the
objects of and the conduct pursuant to that contract or conspiracy were
illegal; and (4) that the plaintiffs were injured as a proximate result
of that conspiracy." Tunis Bros. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 952 F.2d 715, 722
(3d Cir. 1991). In this case, it appears that Mr. Wallace has made the
necessary allegations of FSF's unlawful contract and conduct. In his Third
Amended Complaint, he specifically alleges that FSF conspired with others,
including International Business Machines Corporation, Red Hat Inc. and
Novell Inc., to control the price of available software within a defined
market through the GPL. Primarily at issue in FSF's motion is whether Mr.
Wallace has adequately alleged that the GPL had a resulting anticompetitive
effect.

[... reduction in IP output under GPL price-dumping conspiracy ...]

This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be
inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended Complaint.
Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^           
                   
claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under the rule of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reason doctrine."
------

regards,
alexander.