Slashdot Mirror
GPL Price-Fixing Lawsuit Dismissed
ansak writes "The case of Wallace vs. the Free Software Foundation has been dismissed. It wasn't entirely on the merits of the case. From PJ's analysis, 'despite the judge clearly telling him where his previous complaint was lacking, he didn't fix it.... In this case, he had five tries.' Nevertheless, the judge did make a strong statement that the GPL 'encourages, rather than discourages, free competition' and ordered Wallace to pay court costs: 'Judges do that when they'd like you to learn a good lesson. It's a signal you shouldn't have brought the case in the first place.'"
Just curious if anybody has any knowledge of the average court-cost payment?
-JesseNothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Honestly, pro se lawsuits tend to be disasters. If you can't find a lawyer willing to represent you, it usually means you don't have a case. Quoth TFA.
I didn't know what the term pro se in TFA meant, so I went to answers.com, which helpfully corrected my "misspelling":
Prose
Ordinary language people use in speaking or writing...
I guess that lawsuits based on ordinary language would be a disaster. By the way, "pro se" apparently refers to self-representation, the proverbial provence of lawyers with fools for customers.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
How will he pay for all of that cheese now?
Bring on the talking heads to rile about "Activist Judges Out Of Control!"
What was the WallaceOS that he claimed he was unable to market due to the market abuse of the Linux-conglomerate?
The good thing is judges understanding GPL. I didn't think we've got that far, but it seems I am wrong. Knowing a lot of lawyers in Norway, I
have different experience.
(Yes, I know: this is not statistics.)
Did the guy really expect to win?
Free, as in, you can charge whatever the bloody hell you want for this software!
what will Alexander Terekhov troll usenet about now?
Court costs, which are merely the filing fees and transcript costs (if any) are routinely awarded to the prevailing party in US courts. The Judge did NOT impose sanctions by making him pay attorneys fees. Those are the cost awarded "when they'd like you to learn a good lesson."
Slashdot displays its ignorance of basic legal concepts yet again...
Parenthetically, double jeopardy only applies when a mistrial is declared at which point the prosecution may or may not try to try again.
I wish I could fine every crackpot that's wasted my time.
"Dear Sir. Your letter claiming the invention of a (perpetual motion machine/ proof of the trisection of the angle with compass and straight edge/ stock-picking program/ time cube harvester) was a complete waste of my time due to its impossibility and utter implausibility, as demonstrated by (reputable mathematics/ laws of thermodynamics/ support of your theory by George Gilder or Wired magazine, implying that it is categorically false).
"By my estimation, it required 2 minutes of my time to read your letter and throw it in the shredder and one minute to send out this form letter invoice. At my going rate of $100 per hour, this means you owe me exactly $5 U.S., payable by check, gold bullion, or paypal. Failure to pay this sum will result in a call from my attorney. Sincerely,"
I bet I could make a plush living on commissions if I were to handle the crank mail at a place like MIT or CalTech.
Someone thinks he is William Wallace of the software industry?
Excerpt:
"First, while Mr. Wallace contends that the GPL is "foreclosing competition in the market for computer operating systems" (id.), his problem appears to be that GPL generates too much competition, free of charge. The court's understanding from the GPL itself2 is that it is a software licensing agreement through which the GNU/Linux operating system may be licensed and distributed to individual users so long as those users "cause any work that [they] distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." (GPL 3.) The GPL purportedly functions to "guarantee [users'] freedom to share and change free software." (GPL Preamble.) As alleged, the GPL in no way forecloses other operating systems from entering the market. Instead, it merely acts as a means by which certain software may be copied, modified and redistributed without violating the software's copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation."
This Judge Tinder is an amazingly astute jurist. He just summed up what people have been trying to explain to the anti-GPL crowd for ages now.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Slashdot displays its ignorance of basic legal concepts yet again...
...
Wrong, daddy-o. That comment came from PJ at Groklaw, not slashdot. Lookee here
It's the Order that tells Wallace to pay the Free Software Foundation's costs. Judges do that when they'd like you to learn a good lesson. It's a signal you shouldn't have brought the case in the first place.
Infuriate left and right
Before this case, the GPL was taken to court twice, and it was upheld twice. Something about MySQL in the USA, and another case in Germany.
One of the goals of the GPLv3 consultation process is to identify enforcement issues in all the legal regions of the world. Yet another win in court doesn't give us anything to fix, but it's good to know that Stallman's written a solid licence - GPLv3 should be GPLv2 but better.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
[T]he GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation
Having your case dismissed while simultaneously strengthening the GPL.... priceless.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
void main(){
/* FIXME: enable A20 and enter protected mode */
printf( "goodbye cruel world!\n" );
for(;;);
}
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
void main() is discouraged in an environment built around a standard C library, as it leaves the exit code in an unpredictable state, but in a "freestanding" environment, the system could choose not to implement exit codes, allowing void main(). Specifically, the boot sector calls the kernel loader's main() and does not expect it to return at all, let alone to return an exit code.
My only concern is that it might inflame the Linux vs. Gnu/Linux wars, given that the judge implied that Gnu/Linux was indeed the correct form. It would not look good if a breakaway Linux group appealed the ruling on the grounds that Gnu/Linux sounds stupid.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
He should have gone after Microsoft, a company that has already been convicted under Sherman Anit-Trust. Even then he should have gone after them AFTER trying to market a viable product.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Flamebait? I don't think so. I detected a strong hint of whisky and weaponry there (rye and iron, er..., wry irony... oh never mind, my meds are starting to kick in).
cheers...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
I don't mind admitting that my knowledge of things legal is distinctly limited. Since I am a Canadian, my knowledge of things American-legal can be taken to be even more limited.
...ank
On the other hand, I don't believe I quoted PJ out of context, so if there's a misunderstanding in the story either she (a paralegal) doesn't get it (less likely) or I mis-cited her (possible, but I tried to be careful).
Still, I was already chuckling from one of the other replies to the AnonCow grandparent who said that slashdot doesn't understand things-legal: someone else who won was awarded costs that included his own legal fees. Ah yes, slashdot doesn't understand things legal...
There's irony everywhere!
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
Daniel Wallace's crackpot Anti-GPL arguments were repeatedly and utterly refuted back in Febuary 2004.
Suing Special Olympics for price fixing because they provide all-donation, all-volunteer, 100% free services? I mean, how can a business compete with that?
I'm glad the judge ordered Wallace to pay the court costs. But I wonder just what Grommit has to say about that.
Send $1.00 US in unmarked bills or the sig gets it.
No, you're completely missing the point.
Let's say the two largest OS makers in the market are Microsoft and IBM. If Microsoft and IBM collude to fix the price of their operating systems in order to freeze out competition, that is price-fixing and it is illegal. Now, if Microsoft and IBM use the GPL as a cover for that end, it's still illegal. That the GPL could be a vehicle for price-fixing or other anticompetitive practices is incidental. It really says nothing about the GPL itself. It has to do with who is in cahoots with whom and why.
He might be able to win under "product dumping" statues.
What a sense of humor, he is a dry old stick.
My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
It's true that this is not the grand vindication of the GPL that some may have hoped for. Nevertheless, it is (slightly) more vindication than you suggest. To file claims under the Sherman Act, one must show both personal harm and harm to the market. The judge ruled that Mr. Wallace had shown sufficient personal harm to defeat a motion to dismiss (simply by alleging that his ability to market his own OS had been harmed--the burden of proof is all on the defense in motion to dismiss). but failed to show harm to the market because the GPL is not anti-competitive. He "failed to allege an antitrust injury" because (and only because) the GPL is not anti-competitive. The GPL did win!
The judge wrote: "the Fourth Amended Complaint does not adequately set forth an injury to competition as a whole." The Fourth Amended Complaint (and all three previous) included the full text of the GPL. The fact that the plain text of the GPL "does not adequately set forth an injury to competition as a whole" is a victory for the GPL, albeit a small and unsurprising one. You say, 'The opinion that "The GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition [...]" is not a ruling," when, in fact, it was the basis for the ruling that the plaintiff's case was without merit.
In any case, this does end the "GPL has never been challenged" FUD. The GPL has been challenged (however badly or ineffectually). Even if the case em>had been dismissed for reasons completely unrelated to the GPL, it would still be true that the GPL has been challenged in court now. That is indisputable. The FUDsters have lost a valuable sound-bite. Even if the actual terms of the dismissal don't mean much, that is still one positive result of this nonsense.
He who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer?
Yes, it does.
The GPL sets a maximum price for licensing GPLed software. That price is zero. That is different from charging for physical copies. You may charge whatever you can get away with for the copy. The license is free. That is why the GPL says:
This is an essential part of the GPL. When you download a copy of the Linux kernel, you receive a license to copy, modify, and distribute the code of each kernel contributer. The cost for these licenses is zero, as required by the GPL. If the GPL did not require free licensing, then you might have to pay every contributer for the right to copy or modify the kernel.
This is one of SCO's problems. They are trying to charge license fees for the kernel even though they distributed it, in blatent violation of the section of the GPL quoted above.