Oh, I gather that GNUtian dak has problems to believe that ----- The judge recognized that "Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted" and that "Plaintiffs Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth a Violation of the Rule of Reason", but was fooled to believe that "Plaintiff Has Not Alleged Antitrust Injury". -----
It's in his ruling available at http://www.internetcases.com/library/cases/2005-11-28_wallace_v_fsf.p Here's more: ----- The GPL allows free access to software programs, subject to some limitations. This does not mean that the GPL necessarily aids competition as contemplated by the Sherman Act, as FSF contends. Instead, it could be argued that by making software available to consumers free of charge through a licensing agreement, the GPL results in reduction in output . . . [and] deterioration in quality, United States v. Brown Univ., 5 F.3d 658, 668 (3d Cir. 1993), which could be harmful to consumers. By making certain software programs available to users at no charge, 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 theSherman Act, under the rule of reason doctrine. ----- regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
