Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPL Price-Fixing Lawsuit Dismissed

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the mostly-without-merit dept.

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.'"

7 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. How much do "court costs" usually run? by Enigma_Man · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just curious if anybody has any knowledge of the average court-cost payment?

    -Jesse
    --
    Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
  2. I love irony by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:I love irony by rewinn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >I guess that lawsuits based on ordinary language would be a disaster

      ...for much the same reason that software written in natural language can have difficulties.

      Documents that describe how something should work out and the reasons for it, whether in the legal or the engineering realms, necessarily require technical jargon and precise structure, if they are to have predictable results. The legal "programming language suffers the grave disadvantage of having been crafted over centuries by thousands of people. Some of them were dickering in court, who were often interested in dealing with their particular case, and others were working in legislatures, who are often interested in something else entirely. The result is a language with the clarity of Assembler and the efficiency of COBOL.

      All this effort, and the results may still not be substantively just, but after all engineers too can have difficulty making clear specs conform to what the customer wants. What can ya do?

      P.S. your "pro se/prose" observation was delightful!

      --
      --- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
    2. Re:I love irony by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It literally means "for himself" it is a latin phrase, and as latin is a dead language you cannot change the definition with the times,even if it may offend some people.

  3. Re:the system by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, "double jeopardy" is when one is subjected to a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction (which is generally unconstitutional).

    Umm no. You can appeal your conviction in the US system, but the prosecution can not appeal an aquittal. So you can have a "second prosecution" after conviction.

    Many countries in Europe don't consider let both sides appeal a ruling, moving to higher courts. That is why DVD-Jon was aquitted twice. Those uninformed enough to think US law applies abroad were talking about double jeopardy.

    Once the court case is finally settled (as in out of appeal options) I don't know of any country that lets you be trialed again.

    I guess it's a difference of opinion, in the US the idea is that "If one court can find a shred of reasonable doubt, there is", in Europe it is "The higher the court, the higher the competence and the higher the accuracy."

    Let me take a simple example, say the threshold was 90% (just to pick a number). US Courts: 92+/-2, 91+/-2, 89+/-2, any one aquittal is enough. Europe: 89+/-3, 91+/-1, 91.2+/-0.2.

    Personally I think the US lets you off way too cheaply if you're guilty and manage to sucker the court somehow. Pull it off once and you're home free.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. Reading comprehension, man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  5. agree in part, disagree in part by Xtifr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.