(OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Wed Aug 29 22:37:22 UTC 2007
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 8/29/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>> Yeah, Wallace v. FSF was real fun.
>> Sure, if you like pointless diversions.
> It wasn't entirely pointless. Judge Tinder went on record with this:
> 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.
But as you know, the same ruling said:
"This injury constitutes harm to Mr. Wallace as a competitor, not harm
to consumers specifically, or harm to competition in general. This is
exactly the type of injury Brunswick forecloses. See Atlantic
Richfield Co., 495 U.S. at 338 (“It is not enough for antitrust
plaintiffs to show that the defendants’ anticompetitive behavior injured
them; they must also show that their injury stemmed from an injury to
competition itself, as “the antitrust laws were enacted for ‘the
protection of competition, not competitors.’”). As a result, this court
finds that Mr. Wallace’s Third Amended Complaint does not adequately
plead an antitrust injury upon which his Section 1 claim may move
forward.3 The complaint must therefore be dismissed."
And the final ruling concluded similarly, "For the reasons stated above,
the court finds that Mr. Wallace has failed to allege an antitrust
injury such that his claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act may move
forward. The court therefore GRANTS the Reasserted Motion to Dismiss
(Docket No." Wallace failed to prove the GPL harmed competition.
More information about the License-discuss