[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;) |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:08:59 +0200 |
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> But RedHat does not sell its copyright, it merely licenses copies of
RedHat licenses IP rights in (GPL'd) WORKS. RedHat doesn't "licenses
copies" (of GPL'd works).
> the copyrighted material. The "intangible intellectual property
> assets" remain in the possession of RedHat.
You're either genuinely retarded or just purport to be. The title to
GPL'd IP (apart from stuff they regularly assign to the FSF) does
remain in the possession of RedHat. But the case is about licensing.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.htm#t55
------
5.5 Cross-licensing and pooling arrangements
Cross-licensing and pooling arrangements are agreements of two
or more owners of different items of intellectual property to license
one another or third parties.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [Wallace: "... third parties ... The
stated purpose of the GPL license is to pool intellectual property.
([t]he distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.)
(Ex A (GPL) at 3)).]
[...]
Cross-licensing and pooling arrangements can have anticompetitive
effects ... When cross-licensing or pooling arrangements are mechanisms
to accomplish naked price fixing or market division, they are subject
to challenge under the per se rule. See United States v. New Wrinkle,
Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952) (price fixing).
[...]
Another possible anticompetitive effect of pooling arrangements may
occur if the arrangement deters or discourages participants from
engaging in research and development, thus retarding innovation. For
example, a pooling arrangement that requires members to grant
licenses to each other for current and future technology at minimal
cost may reduce the incentives of its members to engage in research
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [See Judge Tinders ruling before he
got drunk (in a sense) -- the one about anticompetitive effect
he reasonably inferred from by Wallace's complaint and allegations]
and development because members of the pool have to share their
successful research and development and each of the members can
free ride on the accomplishments of other pool members.
------
regards,
alexander.
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), (continued)
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/06/22
- Message not available
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/06/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/06/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/06/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/06/22
- Message not available
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/22
- Message not available
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/06/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;),
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/06/22
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/22