Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)
On 18 Feb 2006 12:43:51 -0500, Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately, the dismissal is not yet final and many of the recent
> filings are not (easily?) available online.
Re: Wither Wallace?
by: day5done 10/12/05 11:03 am
GPL supporters such as Tuxrocks and Groklaw want to avoid publicity
concerning Wallace's legal arguments at all costs. Placing these
filing under the light of public scrutiny is frightening to them.
After all, the GPL has never been tested under judicial scrutiny.
Groklaw, Tuxrocks etc. justify this censorship on the ground that they
are helping Wallace by pointing out flaws in his case. This as if
their legal reasoning is superior to that of a couple of multimillion
dollar Indianapolis lawfirms.
The real reason they censor is fear. GPL supporters are on their knees
praying Wallace is dismissed on "standing". It is perfectly clear to
them what is meant by this guideline:
"When cross-licensing or pooling arrangements are mechanisms to
accomplish naked price fixing or market division, they are subject to
challenge under the per se rule. See United States v. New Wrinkle,
Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952) (price fixing)"; Antitrust Guidelines for
the Licensing of Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Justice and
the Federal Trade Commission (1995)
Widespread discusssion of Wallace's complaints in the media could
cause the DOJ or FTC to become interested --- a total disaster to
price-fixed "free" software. The free software community wants adverse
criticism of the GPL buried under a rock --- along with the