"When you're before Easterbrook, you know he'll understand the issues, will ask astute questions and will make an intellectually honest ruling," said Michele Rocawich, a Chicago attorney who has argued before him and reads his opinions."
Are there multiple Easterbrooks in the 7th? "Easterbrook earned the second-highest ranking in a 2003 study that sought to quantify the quality of federal judges' work by, among other things, counting citations to their work and measuring how fast they produced opinions. Easterbrook's fellow 7th Circuit judge, Richard Posner, ranked No. 1." EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge wrote: [...] > Wallace does not contend that software available for > free under the GPL will lead to monopoly prices in the > future. How could it, when the GPL keeps price low forever Well, copyright is not forever. At least yet. But that's ok. Now, > and precludes the reduction of output that is essential > to monopoly? [I]f a manufacturer cannot make itself > better off by injuring consumers through lower output and > higher prices, there is no role for antitrust law to play. Judge Tinder: "Anticompetitive effect has been described as a reduction of output, increase in price, or deterioration in quality of goods and services. Generac Corp. v. Caterpillar Inc., 172 F.3d 971, 978 (7th Cir. 1999); Wilk v. Am. Med. Assn, 895 F.2d 352, 360-62 (7th Cir. 1990) (impeding consumers free choice is an anticompetitive effect); Les Shockley Racing, Inc. v. Natl Hot Rod Assn, 884 F.2d 504, 508-09 (9th Cir. 1989) (in a market that is both narrow and discrete and the market participants are few, the loss of a competitor may result in an anticompetitive effect if there is an effect on price or availability, the allocation of resources, or the opportunities for market entry). 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. Instead, it could be argued that by making software available to consumers free of charge through a licensing agreement, the GPL results in reduction in output . . . [and] deterioration in quality, United States v. Brown Univ., 5 F.3d 658, 668 (3d Cir. 1993), which could be harmful to consumers. By making certain software programs available to users at no charge, the GPL may be discouraging developers from creating new and better programs because they will not receive compensation for their work, thereby reducing the number of quality programs available to users. This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under the rule of reason doctrine. " > Software that is not maintained and improved eventually > becomes obsolete, and the lack of reward may reduce > the resources devoted to maintenance and improvement > of Linux and other open-source projects. If that occurs, > however, then proprietary software will enter or gain > market share. People willingly pay for quality software even > when they can get free (but imperfect) substitutes. Open Wallace: "Not only competitors are harmed by the GPL scheme. Consumers lose because a lack of competition removes not just product choice but without competitive reward the incentive to improve product quality disappears." [...] > Nor does it help to call the GPL price fixing. Although > it sets a price of zero, agreements to set maximum prices > usually assist consumers and therefore are evaluated under > the Rule of Reason. See State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 > (1997). Intellectual property can be used without being used > up; the marginal cost of an additional user is zero (costs of > media and paper to one side), so once a piece of intellectual > property exists the efficient price of an extra copy is zero, > for that is where price equals marginal cost. Copyright and > patent laws give authors a right to charge more, so that > they can recover their fixed costs (and thus promote > innovation), but they do not require authors to charge more. > No more does antitrust law require higher prices. Linux > and other open-source projects have been able to cover their > fixed costs through donations of time; as long as that > remains true, it would reduce efficiency and consumers > welfare to force the authors to levy a charge on each new > user. Donations. Of Time. And that is "intellectually honest" ruling? Only if he was drunken. Wallace: "When we analyze case (ii) pricing below some appropriate measure of cost we see that a maximum price of zero for the intellectual property in computer programs leads to an absurd result. In addition to the intrinsic value ordained by Art. I, §8, cl. 8 of the Constitution, the cost of creation of intellectual property in computer programs entails the development costs of skilled programmers, new computer hardware, communications costs and administrative overhead. Commercial computer programs are not developed in a zero cost vacuum -- that is an absurd proposition. A maximum price of zero is below any reasonable definition of appropriate measure of cost concerning development and innovation of intellectual property assets." regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
