Richard Tobin wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other co-conspirators > >in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill competition) by higher > >prices of their subscription service contracts. > > >"A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained of are below an > >appropriate measure of its rival's costs > > Red Hat's competitors can, like Red Hat, obtain the GNU and Linux > software at no cost, so it's hard to see in what way their prices are > below their rivals' costs.
So you invite Red Hat's competitors in operating system software IP to give up competing and join predatory price fixing GPL conspiracy in IP like, say, Novell? To quote Supremes (somewhat relevant): "We decline the invitation. As the foregoing discussion makes plain, supra, at 117-118, predatory pricing is an anticompetitive practice forbidden by the antitrust laws. While firms may engage in the practice only infrequently, there is ample evidence suggesting that the practice does occur. 16 It would be novel indeed for a court to deny standing to a party seeking an injunction against threatened injury merely because such injuries rarely occur. 17 In any case, nothing in [479 U.S. 104, 122] the language or legislative history of the Clayton Act suggests that Congress intended this Court to ignore injuries caused by such anticompetitive practices as predatory pricing."; CARGILL, INC. v. MONFORT OF COLORADO, INC., 479 U.S. 104 (1986) If you mean competition in ancillary markets (NOT joining predatory price fixing GPL conspiracy in IP), that's beside the point because Wallace's case is not about ancillary markets. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
