< misc.int-property added > David Kastrup wrote: [...] > appealing this dismissal is not going to be too easy, ...
Oh really? Judge Tinder just made a dull point that "... reduced opportunity as a competitor does not necessarily equate to an antitrust injury as recognized by the courts. Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 488. Indeed, injury in fact is a different beast than antitrust injury. Profl Sports Ltd. Pship v. Natl Basketball Assoc., 961 F.2d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 1992). And whenever the plaintiff and consumers have divergent rather than congruent interests, there is a potential problem in finding antitrust injury. . . . When the plaintiff is a poor champion of consumers, a court must be especially careful not to grant relief that may undercut the proper functions of antitrust. Ball Meml Hosp., Inc. v. Mutual Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1334 (7th Cir. 1986). Mr. Wallace has not alleged that anyone interfered with his freedom to compete in computer software market by creating his own operating system, one perhaps with features different from, or in addition to, that of the GNU/Linux operating system. Indeed, Mr. Wallace has that ability, regardless of whether the GPL is in force or not." and failed to address Wallace's arguments on proper antitrust injury. I suggest you go read http://www.rdantitrustlaw.info/shaky.pdf "This article deals with the ... doctrine of antitrust injury, a concept that the lower courts have often found difficult to understand and apply." I don't think that Judge Tinder has understood and applied it properly in Wallace's case given that Wallace has alleged predatory pricing to begin with. "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 Courts 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 competitors lost profits do count as antitrust injury, even though the predatory practice temporarily benefits consumers)." regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
