David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > "A. Vertical maximum price restraints are not per se unlawful. > > > > The essence of Plaintiff's Complaint appears to be directed at > > Section 2(b) of the GPL, which requires licensees of GPL'd software > > to license any derivative works they create at no charge. Assuming > > for the sake of argument that Plaintiff has standing to bring this > > Complaint, this agreement could be analogized to a vertical maximum > > price restraint, i.e., a requirement by the licensor that the > > licensee charge no more than X amount upon relicense." > > > > -- FSF > > > > Can you read "price restraint" and "no more than X" (X == zero)? > > Can you read "assuming for the sake of argument"?
Oh dear, I have no problem to assume that Wallace has standing. :-) See "STANDING ON SHAKY GROUND: THE STRANGELY ELUSIVE DOCTRINE OF ANTITRUST INJURY": 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 33940. 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)." http://www.justia.us/us/495/328/case.html "Although a vertical, maximum-price-fixing agreement is unlawful under 1 of the Sherman Act, it does not cause a competitor antitrust injury unless it results in predatory pricing." -- U.S. Supreme Court And Judge Tinder clearly erred. Hopefully Judge Young will do better. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss