EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)
Alexander Terekhov
[...]
> First off, hello.
Hello Yorick.
What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
TIA.
regards,
alexander.
Nathanael Nerode
> What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
> http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
is "promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair
share of the resulting benefit", etc.
It almost certainly doesn't fall under paragraph 1 anyway, because it doesn't
"have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of
competition within the common market". I'm not even sure if it falls in the
category of "agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of
undertakings and concerted practices". It quite clearly doesn't fall under
clauses 1(b,c,d,e); and there's substantial evidence from the commercial
companies selling GPL software that it doesn't fall under 1a "directly or
indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions".
So, uh, was that a troll or what?
--
Nathanael Nerode <ner...@twcny.rr.com>
[Insert famous quote here]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Yorick Cool
> On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <yo...@fenris.be> wrote:
> [...]
> > First off, hello.
>
> Hello Yorick.
>
> What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
> http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
I promised myself not to feed trolls, but just out of curiosity, which
are the undertakings entering into illicit agreements under art. 81?
Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they
entering onto agreement? Mmmmh?
Also, please have a look at 81 § 3.
I'll also let you know that you have to demonstrate a negative effect
on the european market to win a case on art. 81 §1. Good luck with
that.
My educated opinion is hence that art. 81 is not a problem with regard
to art. 81. The GPL is a contract between a producer and a buyer
of goods, not between producers, and is not in any regard
price-fixing.
Funnily enough, I have just been asked to write upon the subject, but
have declined to a career change I'm considering.
Alexander Terekhov
> Alexander Terekhov <alexander...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
> > http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
> First of all, the GPL clearly qualifies for the paragraph 3 exception, because
> is "promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair
> share of the resulting benefit", etc.
Nice try. But you conveniently ignore the preconditions for that exception.
"... which does not:
(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not
indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;
(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating
competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in
question. "
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
[...]
> Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they
> entering onto agreement? Mmmmh?
I mean the GPL license.
>
> Also, please have a look at 81 § 3.
I did it.
Now you please take a look at
http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l26108.htm
-----
Licensing agreements that restrict competition are prohibited by the
Community competition rules, and in particular Article 81 of the EC
Treaty. In most cases, however, these agreements also have positive
effects that outweigh their restrictive effects on competition. The
new provisions, which comprise a "block exemption" regulation and
guidelines, create an area of certainty for most licensing agreements.
[...]
These exemptions are granted on condition that the agreements do not
contain certain restrictions that have serious anti-competitive
effects.
-----
And at
http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf
Now please tell me where and why Wallace goes wrong regarding serious
anti-competitive effects of the GPL license when used by a cartel of
competitors to pool and cross license predatory price fixed
intellectual property with the sole objective to eliminate free market
competition.
<quote author=Stallman>
In the GNU Project, discrimination against proprietary software is
not just a policy -- it's the principle and the purpose. Proprietary
software is fundamentally unjust and wrong, so when we have the
opportunity to place it at a disadvantage, that is a good thing.
</quote>
TIA.
regards,
alexander.
Ville Oksanen
Dr. Mikko Välimäki has a quite nice article on the topic:
Mikko Välimäki: Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law, forthcoming
in European Competition Law Review 3/2006
http://www.valimaki.com/org/open_source_competition.pdf
Greets,
Ville Oksanen
Researcher, Helsinki University of Technology
OSSI-project - www.coss.fi/ossi/
Yorick Cool
> On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <yoric...@fundp.ac.be> wrote:
> [...]
> > Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they
> > entering onto agreement? Mmmmh?
>
> I mean the GPL license.
The GPL is a text, not an undertaking you can sue under art. 81. Which
are the undertakings entering an unlawful agreement?
>
> >
> > Also, please have a look at 81 § 3.
>
> I did it.
>
> Now you please take a look at
>
> http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l26108.htm
>
> -----
> Licensing agreements that restrict competition are prohibited by the
> Community competition rules, and in particular Article 81 of the EC
> Treaty. In most cases, however, these agreements also have positive
> effects that outweigh their restrictive effects on competition. The
> new provisions, which comprise a "block exemption" regulation and
> guidelines, create an area of certainty for most licensing agreements.
>
> [...]
>
> These exemptions are granted on condition that the agreements do not
> contain certain restrictions that have serious anti-competitive
> effects.
> -----
The problem is that the GPL does not restrict competition, but rather
enhances it. See, among others, the very good article Ville sent you.
See also the very simple fact that GNU/Linux is the first serious
competitor to MS Windows to emerge in quite some time. This in and of
itself demonstrates a heightening in competition, not a restriction.
> And at
>
> http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf
>
> Now please tell me where and why Wallace goes wrong regarding serious
> anti-competitive effects of the GPL license when used by a cartel of
> competitors to pool and cross license predatory price fixed
> intellectual property with the sole objective to eliminate free market
> competition.
The central fact is very simple: there is no price-fixing in the
GPL. The "conflation between the copyright assets and the physical
media" is not, in this specific case, illegitimate. Since any
distributor can fix any price for the distribution of the software, no
price is fixed for the *distribution* of the software. And what
competition law cares about is the price fixing of the
*distribution*. It does not matter much if a price is fixed on one
specific legal act if the price of the economic transactions involved
are still completely free. Nobody can require Red Hat to give out RHEL
for free because it entered a GPL agreement. This proves RH fixes it's
own prices, and is not bound by a price-fixing agreement.
On a sidenote, I am highly amused to see that RH and Novell have a
marxist-leninist agenda.
>
> <quote author=Stallman>
>
> In the GNU Project, discrimination against proprietary software is
> not just a policy -- it's the principle and the purpose. Proprietary
> software is fundamentally unjust and wrong, so when we have the
> opportunity to place it at a disadvantage, that is a good thing.
>
> </quote>
That is what competition is about. When MS can place free software at
a disadvantage, it tries to do so to. That's the magic of
competition. It is not illegal per se.
Also, please stop CCing people. I am subscribed to the list and don't
need your answers twice.
Alexander Terekhov
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:28:22AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <yoric...@fundp.ac.be> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they
> > > entering onto agreement? Mmmmh?
> >
> > I mean the GPL license.
>
> The GPL is a text, not an undertaking you can sue under art. 81. Which
> are the undertakings entering an unlawful agreement?
Next stupid question, please. Are you really educated in (some) law?
[...]
> The problem is that the GPL does not restrict competition, but rather
> enhances it. See, among others, the very good article Ville sent you.
Not entirely bad article, I agree. I just don't find his argumentation
convincing.
>
> See also the very simple fact that GNU/Linux is the first serious
> competitor to MS Windows to emerge in quite some time. This in and of
> itself demonstrates a heightening in competition, not a restriction.
Fighting competition by employing unlawful means is illegal. Wallace
didn't sue Apple and Darwin folk for foreclosing competition using
predatory price fixing of pooled and cross-licensed IP with the BSD.
Because the BSD doesn't price fix IP, I gather.
[...]
> The central fact is very simple: there is no price-fixing in the
> GPL.
Mikko Välimäki seems to disagree.
> The "conflation between the copyright assets and the physical
> media" is not, in this specific case, illegitimate. ...
Well, we'll see.
> Also, please stop CCing people. I am subscribed to the list and don't
> need your answers twice.
Please learn how to set up followup-to if it bothers you.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
> <clip>
>
> Dr. Mikko Välimäki has a quite nice article on the topic:
>
> Mikko Välimäki: Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law, forthcoming
> in European Competition Law Review 3/2006
> http://www.valimaki.com/org/open_source_competition.pdf
day5done (some folks believe that he is Wallace) commented:
------
It appears Dr. Välimäki is as objective and unbiased in Europe as Eben
Moglen is in the United States. Ever see anyone author and sell a book
on open source licensing that didn't fervently believe in the
self-promoting assumptions surrounding open source software?
"Order a print copy from Amazon or directly from us by filling in an
order form or emailing your name, address and the number of copies
wanted. We will process the order within 48 hrs and send the book with
payment instructions. Direct order is preferred for European
customers. The price of one copy is 39 EUR plus shipping charges (5
EUR for one copy to Europe)."
bio:
"Mikko Välimäki, LL.M., Ph.D, is a research fellow at Swedish School
of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki. He also teaches
technology and intellectual property law at the Helsinki University of
Technology. Mr. Välimäki has consulted especially software companies
and is the author of a book on open source licensing (available at
http://pub.turre.com/). Previously, Mr. Välimäki has been a visiting
scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a co-founder
and former chairman of Electronic Frontier Finland."
The "open source community" and its proponents are one giant,
homogeneous, self-promoting hairball.
------
regards,
alexander.
olive
> On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <yo...@fenris.be> wrote:
> [...]
>
>>First off, hello.
>
>
> Hello Yorick.
>
> What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
> http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
Germany (which part of the EU) has declared the GPL legal. See
http://lwn.net/Articles/73848/
what would you like more?
P.S. You know this article since I read a comment of you about it. You
were saying that the juge was wrong. I wonder what is right for you...
Olive
Frank Küster
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <yo...@fenris.be> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>First off, hello.
>> Hello Yorick.
>> What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
>> http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
>
> Germany (which part of the EU) has declared the GPL legal. See
> http://lwn.net/Articles/73848/
Germany hasn't done anything, at least nothing is described in this
article. A particular german court has spoken.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Yorick Cool
> On 2/15/06, Yorick Cool <yoric...@fundp.ac.be> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:28:22AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <yoric...@fundp.ac.be> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they
> > > > entering onto agreement? Mmmmh?
> > >
> > > I mean the GPL license.
> >
> > The GPL is a text, not an undertaking you can sue under art. 81. Which
> > are the undertakings entering an unlawful agreement?
>
> Next stupid question, please. Are you really educated in (some) law?
Check for yourself.
http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005395/
Sorry it's in french (the website has just been revamped), but I guess
you'll get the gist of it. A hint: "logiciels libres" means "free software".
It is far from being a stupid question. Before saying the GPL is
tantamount to price-fixing, you have to at least state who concluded
the price-fixing agreement you consider the GPL to be. I'll concede to
you it is elementary, (competition law, day one), but you are the one
who hasn't done it, not me.
>
> [...]
> > The problem is that the GPL does not restrict competition, but rather
> > enhances it. See, among others, the very good article Ville sent you.
>
> Not entirely bad article, I agree. I just don't find his argumentation
> convincing.
Just like I don't find Wallace's argument convincing.
>
>
> > See also the very simple fact that GNU/Linux is the first serious
> > competitor to MS Windows to emerge in quite some time. This in and of
> > itself demonstrates a heightening in competition, not a restriction.
>
> Fighting competition by employing unlawful means is illegal. Wallace
> didn't sue Apple and Darwin folk for foreclosing competition using
> predatory price fixing of pooled and cross-licensed IP with the BSD.
> Because the BSD doesn't price fix IP, I gather.
When a certain practice actually heightens competition (and fills
other criteria I have stated elsewhere), it is not unlawful. That is
my whole point.
>
> [...]
> > The central fact is very simple: there is no price-fixing in the
> > GPL.
>
> Mikko Välimäki seems to disagree.
You forgot to read the end of his reasoning. After having accepted the
idea that one might argue that the GPL might be seen as price-fixing
because of the zero royalties, he states -- just like I do -- that
fixing zero royalties is not the same thing as fixing a zero price "A
royalty-free requirement does not imply that the price of the software
must be zero. Software can be priced through other means than
copyright royalties as well."
>
> > The "conflation between the copyright assets and the physical
> > media" is not, in this specific case, illegitimate. ...
>
> Well, we'll see.
Yep.
>
> > Also, please stop CCing people. I am subscribed to the list and don't
> > need your answers twice.
>
> Please learn how to set up followup-to if it bothers you.
Nah, I'll just invoke the code of conduct, which allows me not to bother.
Code of conduct
When using the Debian mailing lists, please follow these rules:
(...)
* When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a
carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly
request to be copied.
Yorick
Yorick Cool
> olive <oliv...@versateladsl.be> wrote:
>
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >> On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <yo...@fenris.be> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>First off, hello.
> >> Hello Yorick.
> >> What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
> >> http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
> >
> > Germany (which part of the EU) has declared the GPL legal. See
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/73848/
>
> Germany hasn't done anything, at least nothing is described in this
> article. A particular german court has spoken.
Very true, but you can't expect much more. Governments don't often
offer general statements as to the validity of licenses. The best you
can hope on a particular license is:
1) A governmental assessment of the license showing it is fit for
government use
2) A court ruling on the validity of a license.
--
Yorick
olive
> olive <oliv...@versateladsl.be> wrote:
>
>
>>Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <yo...@fenris.be> wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>First off, hello.
>>>
>>>Hello Yorick.
>>>What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
>>>http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
>>
>>Germany (which part of the EU) has declared the GPL legal. See
>>http://lwn.net/Articles/73848/
>
>
> Germany hasn't done anything, at least nothing is described in this
> article. A particular german court has spoken.
>
>
> Regards, Frank
>
>
Sorry, this article was not the most appropriate. Here is a translation
of the Germany lawsuit I was thinking about:
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
olive
>
> Germany hasn't done anything, at least nothing is described in this
> article. A particular german court has spoken.
Yes a court has spoken and has made an injonction to follow the GPL.
German courts follow German law... "Germany" cannot declare the GPL in
any other way.
Alexander Terekhov
> olive <oliv...@versateladsl.be> wrote:
>
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >> On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool <yo...@fenris.be> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>First off, hello.
> >> Hello Yorick.
> >> What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
> >> http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
> >
> > Germany (which part of the EU) has declared the GPL legal. See
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/73848/
>
> Germany hasn't done anything, at least nothing is described in this
> article. A particular german court has spoken.
A particular German district court in Munich (the home of ifross' lead
attorney who is representing Welte and who's full of wild fantasies***
regarding the GPL being a special contract coupled with "AGB" based on
German concept of conditions subsequent) has just reiterated what
Welte's attorneys have thrown on poor court in the context of ex parte
action (not Hauptverfahren) to obtain a totally pointless preliminary
injunction against German "call center" of alleged violator from
Netherlands. With the defendant just saying that it doesn't make any
sense to sue us.
More serious and higher ranked folks have also spoken. Like Appellate
Judge (and etc.) Hoeren.
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
regards,
alexander.
***) The gang at ifross is not happy with the GPLv3. The change in
termination provision totally breaks their silly legal construction.
http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/
olive
> More serious and higher ranked folks have also spoken. Like Appellate
> Judge (and etc.) Hoeren.
>
> http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
I am not a lawyer and I cannot comment on every objection. But there are
arguments that obviously seeems flawed and I am very suspicious for the
others.
It is reproached that a German court apply German law (?!?). A Germanian
bring a lawsuit in Germany for infrigment of a license he have choosen.
It is obvious that German laws will apply. The fact that this license
were written in the U.S. and the history of the license is not really
relevant in this case.
It is reproached that the term "license" does not exists in the E.U. But
if a term in a contract is not exactly the perfect term or is even wrong
that does not mean that the contract as a whole is null. Especially that
the definition of a "license" is not really important to understand the GPL
The jugment speak of the possibility that there were no contract between
the parties and yes in this case there is copyright enfrigment.
Copyright law requires *explicit* permission to distribute copyrighted
materials; if you do not have the permission you have no right.
It would violate equity if you give the permission to distribute the
software but use invalide terms and then sue the people which have
respected what they believe they was right. But if you say that people
may not redistribute (as the GPL which say that you may not redistribute
if you do not provide source, etc...) even in invalide terms; it would
not amount to give an explicit permission to distribute (which is
required).
As last I do not know exactly "German law" but in Belgium (which I think
is similar) you do not need to use "valid legal terms" for a contract to
be valid. The court usually interpret contract as "what a normally
educated people will understand". Exept a few technicalities (which are
of minor importance) the meaning of the GPL is perfectly understandable
by everybody. It seems to invalidate many of the objections made by
these people.
Alexander Terekhov
>
> Check for yourself.
> http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005395/
> Sorry it's in french (the website has just been revamped), but I guess
> you'll get the gist of it. A hint: "logiciels libres" means "free software".
Cool. Let me guess: Master in Free Software Law?
[...]
> You forgot to read the end of his reasoning. After having accepted the
> idea that one might argue that the GPL might be seen as price-fixing
> because of the zero royalties, he states ...
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/77958a74761c9565
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
[...]
> It is reproached that a German court apply German law (?!?). A Germanian
> bring a lawsuit in Germany for infrigment of a license he have choosen.
> It is obvious that German laws will apply.
It's far from obvious unless the license specifies that it is governed
by German law. More later.
regards,
alexander.
olive
GPL are dismissed one after the other.
http://hearsay.com/wp-hdcarchives/cases/wallace_v_fsf-28nov2005.pdf
http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/168985.htm
Michael Poole
> I think the following links might interest you. All complain about the
> GPL are dismissed one after the other.
>
> http://hearsay.com/wp-hdcarchives/cases/wallace_v_fsf-28nov2005.pdf
> http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/168985.htm
Unfortunately, the dismissal is not yet final and many of the recent
filings[1] are not (easily?) available online. However, it is amusing
that (in a case lasting several times as long) SCOX has needed to
amend their complaint against IBM fewer times than Mr. Wallace has
against the FSF.
[1]- http://sco.tuxrocks.com/?Case=Wallace
Michael Poole
Alexander Terekhov
> I think the following links might interest you.
Yeah.
> All complain about the GPL are dismissed one after the other.
>
> http://hearsay.com/wp-hdcarchives/cases/wallace_v_fsf-28nov2005.pdf
Here the judge rejected a number of the arguments of the Free Software
Foundation, including that the nature of the GPL providing free access
to software programs, subject to some limitations, necessarily aids
competition.
Wallace filed amended complaint, and the briefing is under way.
AFAICS, in his responses to the FSF and Red Hat+Novell (that's another
case) Wallace totally devastated ICE MILLER.
> http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/168985.htm
What?I You're referring to Groklaw PJ's enemy #1 O'Gara? He he.
Well. The latest Wallace's filing is this:
http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
[...]
> Unfortunately, the dismissal is not yet final and many of the recent
> filings[1] 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
dotCommunist Manifesto.
------
regards,
alexander.
olive
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. What I am
looking for is an actual judgement; not only arguments that please you.
All judgements I know have been up to now in favour of the GPL. If you
can show me the contrary, please do it,
Alexander Terekhov
[...]
> > 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.
That previous "ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT" was not
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."
regards,
alexander.