David Kastrup wrote: [...] > So you feel unable to face the facts. The fact is that the GPL price-fixes IP at zero. The fact is that zero is below cost of IP creation and hence is predatory. As for the rest,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=495&invol=328 "Held: 1. Actionable "antitrust injury" is an injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful. Injury, although causally related to an antitrust violation, will not qualify unless it is attributable to an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny, since it is inimical to the antitrust laws to award damages for losses stemming from continued competition. Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 109 -110. P. 334 2. A vertical, maximum-price-fixing conspiracy in violation of 1 of the Sherman Act must result in predatory pricing to cause a competitor antitrust injury. Pp. 335-341." > Thanks for making this obvious. > You shouldn't complain, however, that the judge in this case has _not_ > like you ignored the plain facts. Judge Tinder clearly erred. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
