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.'"
"pro se" means "for himself" - in other words, he's arguing for himself, rather than having a lawyer argue for him.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
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, it means "for himself, herself, itself, or oneself. In Latin, the reflexive pronoun "se" does not vary for gender, so it's every bit as accurate to translate it as "for herself" as "for himself". Completely off-topic, but the language geek in me couldnt let it go. :-)
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.
Courtesy of a post on Groklaw, court costs don't include attorney fees (although they can be imposed, too). Another post in the Groklaw thread suggested a figure of about $2k (for the FSF's costs...), but PJ said probably lower. I understand Wallace has similar cases pending against RedHat, Novell, and IBM. He probably has similar chances of success. It's going to add up if he pushes...
I
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!