Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> This is going to be cute. The problem with an appeal is that Wallace >> does not merely have to get it right this time: he has to prove that >> he got it right last time around, and the court just failed to notice. > > Appellate court will review district court's grant of motion to dismiss > de novo, accepting all the allegations in Wallace's complaint as true > and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Wallace. > > I'm pretty sure that dismissal "based on failure to allege an > anticompetitive effect" will be reversed because "predatory pricing > has the requisite anticompetitive effect" (ARCO).
Well, first predatory pricing _as_ _defined_ would have to be shown. One fallacy here is that "predatory pricing" requires "pricing" in the first place, and the parties _participating_ in GPLed software development are not free to set the "price for intellectual property": this is fixed by the upstream license. Adhering to license terms is not prohibited and does not form a conspiracy, or all law-abiding citizens would be in a conspiracy. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
