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.
Bring on the talking heads to rile about "Activist Judges Out Of Control!"
No worry mate. Grommit will simply build him another rocket so he can go to the moon for all of that free cheese. This time they'll take a cheese grater so that they can make "snow".
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.
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.
No, "double jeopardy" is when one is subjected to a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction (which is generally unconstitutional). A mistrial ends the trial before an acquittal or conviction, so a retrial after a mistrial is not double jeopardy, it's just a retrial.
Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
What was the WallaceOS
It was basically FreeBSD with all of the non-BSD licensed software removed, and no source.
So no X, no gcc, etc.
No, I'm not kidding.
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.
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
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.
What was the WallaceOS that he claimed he was unable to market due to the market abuse of the Linux-conglomerate?
Full of great - if slightly whacky - ideas that look promising but it almost always needs the GromitOS to get it out of trouble.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
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.
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.
"First, the GPL sets a maximum price."
No it doesn't. I could offer to sell a copy of Fedora for a billion dollars if I wanted. Nothing the copyright holder(s) could do about it under the GPL, even if I found someone stupid enough to pay me. Even if I don't modify it at all.
You may be thinking of the source code clause, which says that once I have distributed the binary, I must offer the source code for no more than a reasonable cost of delivery of media. However, that clause doesn't affect binary cost at all. I could still sell the binary for a billion dollars; it's just that once I've sold the binary, I'd have to sell the source code for something more like $2. Of course, if I just ship the source *with* the binary (or deliver just the source), that clause goes out the window.