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.'"
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.
"The law is only hard to understand because lawyers and paralegals puff themselves up by using legalisms like pro se when writing for a lay audience. PJ could have just written, "Lawsuits where the plaintff represents himself." "
:-/
Perhaps irony is when someone makes a post on Slashdot decrying the use of jargon.
(But I do agree with you, anyway.)
Bring on the talking heads to rile about "Activist Judges Out Of Control!"
Not Applicable. In this case, the judge certainly didn't behave as an Activist for either party. In spite of all the rumors and misinterpretations on both slashdot and groklaw, the judge said "A dismissal is appropriate only if the plaintiff can establish no set of facts", and dismissed accordingly. Facts had nothing to do with it, and the judge didn't consider any facts in his dismissal.
The judge made no actual ruling in the case, except to dismiss it. People are saying that the judge "upheld the GNU/GPL" but actually it never went on trial. The opinion that "The GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers....." is not a ruling, it is an opinion that is no more than a side comment and not a precident. The dismissal was not based on this opinion, but rather on Mr. Wallace's inability to articulate a claim.
"For the reasons stated above, the court finds that Mr. Wallace has failed to allege an antitrust injury such that his claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act may move forward. The court therefore GRANTS the Reasserted Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34), filed December 29, 2005. Mr. Wallace is DENIED leave to further amend his complaint."
It would appear that the GPL didn't "win", but rather, Mr. Wallace failed. Nothing was decided except the fact that Mr. Wallace had a bad lawyer: himself. What you find in this that would smack of "Activism" by the judge, I have no idea.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Also, appeals in the US (and I would hope probably most places) only consider matters of law, not of fact. Trying the facts becomes more and more suspicious as time elapses, as memories fade and trails of custody of evidence become more and more fractured and prone to error. So the presumption is that reasonable doubt can only increase with time, not decrease.
Anyway, the point of the double jeopardy rule in the US is a reaction to a visciously unjust (European) government tactic of the time of simply trying someone over and over again if they don't like the result of the first trial. Since our particular form of justice puts supremacy on the jury rather than on appointed judges, any trial after the jury aquits would be a trial of this form. It's not a perfect system, but it's one (agan, imperfect) check and balance on the power of government to unjustly harrass an innocent that the government doesn't like for some reason.
Not that we're really living up to those ideals these days... but I have a moderate amount of confidence in the long-term stability of the system even if it has the ability to royally screw up in the short term.
Bingo, and in my case I got the fine portion reduced by almost a grand.
I specifically said:
"Guilty with an apology, your honor". The judge looked at me with the funniest expression I have ever seen and asked me why I said that. My response was simple and honest: I did what I did, and it was wrong. I would have never done it had I any inkling that it was going to cost me so much. You bet I'm sorry. She cut the fine down from $1550 to $600 + court costs.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
No point is being missed. The ruling correctly states the GPL fosters, not hinders, competition and innovation contrary to the claim of the plaintiff. Microsoft and IBM can not possibly use it to freeze out other operating systems because nothing in the GPL prohibits other operating systems from being created.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
There are several points that make Linux under the GPL different.
First, the GPL sets a maximum price. This is different from setting a price. If two competitors agree to set a price, this is considered to be always anticompetitive. Setting a maximum price is different.
Second, the GPL is by its nature a vertical agreement (between producer and distributer) rather than a horizontal agreement (between producers or between distributers). The rules are different. Horizontal pricing agreements of any sort are pretty much illegal, however certain vertical pricing agreements must be proven to reduce consumer choice or increase consumer prices.
Wallace argued that the GPL was the kind of price fixing agreement that is per se illegal; in other words, the agreement is by its nature illegal because it can be assumed to have a deleterious effect on consumers. He was wrong. This left him having to prove that the GPL hurts consumers, which he cannot because it doesn't. Instead, he argued that he as a competitor was hurt; unfortunately for him, antitrust law protects competition, not competitors.