[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)

On 2/19/06, olive <olive.lin@versateladsl.be> wrote:
> > http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf
> >
> There is no judgement at all in this document which is resume only the
> arguments of D. Wallace. This court has dismissed D. Wallace on the
> basis of similar arguments in the documents I have pointed.

The basis for dismissal was the judgement that Wallace didn't allege
proper antitrust injury. It has really nothing to do with his
arguments on price-fixing, etc.

In his later filings, Wallace is just pressing the argument of
predatory pricing which is consistent with
http://www.rdantitrustlaw.info/shaky.pdf "More generally, competitors
may never be heard to complain of artificially low prices unless they
are predatory, because it is only predatorily low prices that threaten
injury to competition.94 94) Id. at 339–40. The Court's discussion was
consistent with the Brunswick dictum on predatory pricing. See
Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 489 n.14 (where there is true predation (not
just uncomfortably aggressive price cutting), a competitor's lost
profits do count as antitrust injury, even though the predatory
practice temporarily benefits consumers)."

> What I am looking for is an actual judgement; not only arguments that please you.

Oh you should really look at the actual judgement. The judge already
ruled that "Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon
Which Relief can be Granted" and Wallace expands on that finding of
"vertical agreement" in his "Alternative Vertical Analysis".

> All judgements I know have been up to now in favour of the GPL.

quite in favour of the GPL.

> If you can show me the contrary, please do it,

Just read it. I mean bits like "The GPL allows free access to software
programs, subject to some limitations. This does not mean that the GPL
necessarily aids competition as contemplated by the Sherman Act, as
FSF contends."


Reply to: