Sáb, 2006-05-20 às 19:52 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Operating system software. I'll make it simple for you. Suppose
> that all GPL'd software evaporates tomorrow. People will need
> software in place of it. That's the market. Got it now? And, BTW,
> what the Judge said is "Because he [
David Kastrup writes:
> Apart from that, RedHat does not _set_ the price for licensing, anyway.
Red Hat does not even _do_ the licensing, except for the small fraction of
Linux to which they own the copyrights.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
_
Reality check...
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Uh, why don't you check that page yourself? Service contracts cost
I said subscription contracts.
> _extra_. The cheapest version you can get ($179) has only
>
>- 30 Days Installation and Basic Configuration Phone Support
That's Basic Support
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> There are no "losses from GPL conspiracy". RedHat sells its media at
>> a profit.
>
> dak. dak. dak.
>
> Why don't you go to https://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/ and check
> yourself what they are selling. IIRC, m
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> There are no "losses from GPL conspiracy". RedHat sells its media at
> a profit.
dak. dak. dak.
Why don't you go to https://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/ and check
yourself what they are selling. IIRC, media kits are optional and
free (as in free beer, not GNU "f
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Please specify which market you think this is supposed to be. Up to
>> >> now you have only vaguely paraded "intellectual prop
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Please specify which market you think this is supposed to be. Up to
> >> now you have only vaguely paraded "intellectual property" around.
> >> Please specify _exactly_ what Wallace
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Please specify which market you think this is supposed to be. Up to
>> now you have only vaguely paraded "intellectual property" around.
>> Please specify _exactly_ what Wallace is supposed to be selling in the
>> pr
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Please specify which market you think this is supposed to be. Up to
> now you have only vaguely paraded "intellectual property" around.
> Please specify _exactly_ what Wallace is supposed to be selling in the
> presumed market.
Operating system software. I'll make it
Sáb, 2006-05-20 às 19:08 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > There is no identifiable market.
>
> That's not what the Judge said. Yeah, of course, to GNUtians, there's
> no market in Wallace's case.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> There is no identifiable market.
>
> That's not what the Judge said.
There is no identifiable market where the defendants would damage
Wallace by allegedly predatory pricing, because all markets in
question here ar
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> There is no identifiable market.
That's not what the Judge said. Yeah, of course, to GNUtians, there's
no market in Wallace's case.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-mi
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> I don't see that they specify the manner of recouping, and I'd
>> consider this too narrow for a reasonably effective definition of
>> "predatory pricing".
>
> If the defendant would not be likely to raise prices to above what
> wo
David Kastrup writes:
> I don't see that they specify the manner of recouping, and I'd consider
> this too narrow for a reasonably effective definition of "predatory
> pricing".
If the defendant would not be likely to raise prices to above what would
otherwise have been the market price, where is
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Why would I need to? Up to now they appear perfectly capable of
>> reading the law.
>
> Oh really?
>
> The District Court ruled (emphasis added):
>
> "Wallace ALLEGES that the Defendants’ “PREDATORY PRICE-fixing sche
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Why would I need to? Up to now they appear perfectly capable of
> reading the law.
Oh really?
The District Court ruled (emphasis added):
"Wallace ALLEGES that the Defendants PREDATORY PRICE-fixing scheme
prevents [him] from marketing his own computer operating
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote:
>> What they mean is that the plaintiff must prove that if the defendant
>> succeeded in driving him out of business with predatory pricing he would
>> subsequently be able to recoup the money he lost selling below cost by
>> selling at the elevat
Sáb, 2006-05-20 às 15:56 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > You can't sell "intellectual property"
>
> Bzzt. Copyright (refs to patents in Wallace's case aside for a moment)
> is a form of property which, like physical property, can be bought or
> sold, inheri
I wrote:
> What they mean is that the plaintiff must prove that if the defendant
> succeeded in driving him out of business with predatory pricing he would
> subsequently be able to recoup the money he lost selling below cost by
> selling at the elevated price he would be able to demand as a result
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ROFL.
>
> Hey I'm you fan dak.
>
> ROFL once again.
>
> Hey dak, fax an appellate amicus. "Tell that to the judges."
Why would I need to? Up to now they appear perfectly capable of
reading the law.
> regards,
> alexander.
Talk about getting d
ROFL.
Hey I'm you fan dak.
ROFL once again.
Hey dak, fax an appellate amicus. "Tell that to the judges."
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You can't sell "intellectual property"
>
> Bzzt. Copyright (refs to patents in Wallace's case aside for a moment)
> is a form of property which, like physical property, can be bought or
> sold, inherited, licensed o
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You are the author of
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> which you quoted in
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> which you quoted in
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's how one blogs on usenet. ;-)
regards,
alexander.
___
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/b81437831e209017
>> > ("not the merits")
>>
>> Terekhov quoting Terekhov quoting Terekhov.
>
> I'm not the author of "not the merits". Go visit
>
> http://group
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You can't sell "intellectual property"
Bzzt. Copyright (refs to patents in Wallace's case aside for a moment)
is a form of property which, like physical property, can be bought or
sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise transferred, wholly or in part.
regards,
alexa
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>> > As for proof, "A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained
>> > of are below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs
>>
>> The marginal cost of production of copies of Linux is
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>> As for proof, "A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained
>> of are below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs
>
> The marginal cost of production of copies of Linux is at most the cost of
> pressing a DVD.
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > As for proof, "A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained
> > of are below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs
>
> The marginal cost of production of copies of Linux is at most the cost of
> pressing a DVD. The marginal co
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/b81437831e209017
> > ("not the merits")
>
> Terekhov quoting Terekhov quoting Terekhov.
I'm not the author of "not the merits". Go visit
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision
might help.
[...]
> >> Ba
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> As for proof, "A plaintiff must prove (1) that the prices complained
> of are below an appropriate measure of its rival's costs
The marginal cost of production of copies of Linux is at most the cost of
pressing a DVD. The marginal cost of granting a GPL license is zer
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GNUtian dak is getting desperate.
Your smokescreen attempts would probably appear less ridiculous if you
bothered giving some reason for them, however stupid.
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Your views re merits of Wallace's allegations are be
GNUtian dak is getting desperate.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Your views re merits of Wallace's allegations are beside the point
> > under 12(b)(6) standard.
>
> Tell that to the judges.
Bzzt.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/b81437831e209017
("not the merits")
[...]
> >
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> 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
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> 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,
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.
>
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
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> > You're arguing against a caricature of his case, and not his case
>> >> > itself.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that's exactly what I say.
>> >
>> > But that caricature is of
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > You're arguing against a caricature of his case, and not his case
> >> > itself.
> >>
> >> Yes, that's exactly what I say.
> >
> > But that caricature is of your own making.
> >
> > Wallace has 30 days to appeal. I
38 matches
Mail list logo
