Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..

[Rahul Dhesi]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

I wrote:

> Did you all notice this major shift in Rjack's position?
> 
> Previously, he was content to claim that the GPL is merely
> unenforceable...  So now, according to Rjack, suddenly, the GPL
> contains illegal terms!

Rjack now does a little backpedalling:

>1) The licensing fees in the GPL are price fixed a no charge to all
>third parties.

Are we talking antitrust here? The GPL already won in a recent case.
See Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. et al. You can find
a summary with references in the Wikipedia. You can read the opinion at
http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/Wallace-IBM-7th-Cir.pdf .

But even if you could prove an antitrust violation (and you are not even
close to doing so), that would not make any of the GPL's terms illegal,
only unenforceable.  Before you could persuasively claim that the terms
were illegal, you would have to get a court to agree with you. The legal
theories that you have posted so far don't seem to be any better than
those of Wallace.  Wallace filed his complaint multiple times, but after
repeated amendments, could not make it viable, losing each time. And
then he lost again on appeal.

Simply repeating that the GPL is unenforceable not only do not make it
so, but it also doesn't make any of the GPL's terms illegal.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/