EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge wrote: [...] > maintains. The GPL is the conspiracy as Wallace sees > things; it is a joint undertaking among users and creators
Wallace doesn't see users undertaking anything that he's complaining about. > of derivative works to undercut the price of any potential > rival. But the district judge dismissed the complaint, ruling > that Wallace does not suffer antitrust injury, see Brunswick > Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977), > because he is a would-be producer rather than a consumer. > Although antitrust law serves the interests of consumers > rather than producers, the Supreme Court has permitted > producers to initiate predatory-pricing litigation. See > Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., > 509 U.S. 209 (1993); Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. > Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). This does not > assist Williams, however, because his legal theory is > faulty substantively. Well, *Williams* legal theory may well be faulty substantively and even worse. Does anyone know anything about Williams legal theory? :-) regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
