Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> 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
>> presumed market.
>
> 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.

So you are talking about selling licenses and media.  Fine.  RedHat is
operating profitably in that business, so no predatory pricing.  And
hundreds of other companies have entered this business with GNU/Linux
offerings as well, so it would not appear like there is an
anticompetitive effect.  Rather the contrary: much more competition
than Wallace would like.

If that's the supposed market, it does not meet the criteria.  Because
competition has increased, and because the defendants are operating
profitably.  And Wallace does not even claim anything different.

> Got it now?

I got nothing that would stand a chance of meeting the criteria of
"predatory pricing".  But anyway, you'll likely weazle around and be
meaning entirely different things in a moment, things that work out
equally bad.

> And, BTW, what the Judge said is "Because he [Wallace] has not
> identified an anticompetitive effect, Wallace has failed to allege a
> cognizable antitrust injury." and he dismissed for that reason.

Well, that's pretty much the same as failing to allege a market where
an anticompetitive effect would be visible.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum