Subject: Re: (OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
From: "Alexander Terekhov" <>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:28:54 +0200

On 8/30/07, Chris Travers <> wrote:
> Alexander;
> The issue is that Wallace vs. FSF is pointless because it didn't get
> past the question of whether it was properly before the court.  All the
> court ruled was that the complaint was articulated such that it could
> constitute a case, had Wallace had standing to try it.  IANAL, but I
> know enough not to point to cases that were dismissed as evidence of

I've just pointed out what Judge Tinder said about one possible
anticompetitive effect of copyleft and namely that "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. "

> legal problems.

But Judge Tinder simply erred regarding antitrust injury and standing.
Wallace alleged injury from agreement to fix IP prices at predatory
levels. The Supreme Court held that
"[a]lthough a vertical, maximum price-fixing agreement is unlawful
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, it does not cause a competitor
antitrust injury unless it results in predatory pricing". Heck, even
Easterbrook managed to notice that "the Supreme Court has permitted
producers to initiate predatory-pricing litigation."