Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules GPL Doesn't Violate Antitrust Laws

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the happy-penguins dept.

unix4reel writes "Internet Cases reports on a new decision from a federal court in Chicago holding that 'the GPL and open-source have nothing to fear from the antitrust laws. The suit was against IBM, Red Hat and Novell, arguing that by distributing Linux for free, they offered products at an unbeatably low price (free), thus discouraging new market entrants and stifling competition. The court took a different view, focusing instead on how the GPL fosters new development."

8 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. w00t by thejrwr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This just goes to show you, that the GPL is well written! Take that Microsoft!

  2. Interesting thing about the opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    See http://www.internetcases.com/library/cases/2006-11 -09_wallace_v_ibm.pdf, where the judge goes off the rails of reality in the very first paragraph:
    Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also the creation of derivative works--and the license prohibits charging for the derivative work.


    If the Court makes a mistake that fundamental -- the idea that you can't charge for software derived from other GPL software -- then we should all consider ourselves lucky that the opinion in toto was correct. IANAL, but doesn't this kind of "bug" open up possible avenues for appeal?
    1. Re: Interesting thing about the opinion... by frankie · · Score: 2, Interesting
      and the license prohibits charging for the derivative work.

      Mr Coward misinterprets what that sentence is saying. It's not saying you can't sell derivative copies (pretty sure none of these are directly from Mr Torvalds); it's saying the licenser (original seller) isn't allowed to charge the licensee (new buyer) royalties if the buyer wants to sell their own version. Which is exactly correct.

  3. Victory over a paper tiger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The goodness of this victory is diluted by the fact that Wallace didn't have the money to properly argue his case. As such, it doesn't have much value as a precident. If someone with big bucks was making the argument, and if the GPL was being defended by someone with no resources, the decision could have gone the other way.

    Note that the bully boys of the RIAA always go after people who don't have the resources to defend themselves. Even then they lose the occasional case. Justice in this country goes to whoever can hire the best lawyers.

    Am I cynical? Yep.

  4. What was the Plaintiff thinking? by parvenu74 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This should have been a really easy case in which prove a lack of harm to the marketplace: simply copy the GPL software released by IBM, Red Hat, and Novell onto a DVD, write your own label on the disk with a Sharpie (Sam's Software Stack, perhaps?) and then sell it to someone right there in the court room and ask the judge and the defendants if there is anything in the GPL license or the law which makes that act illegal. Case closed.

  5. antitrust by mikeee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The interesting point the court made is that antitrust law is made to protect consumers, not businesses. Selling below cost violates antitrust only if it's part of a plan to drive out your competitors and jack up prices later. Since the GPL doesn't allow the 'jack up prices later' part, there's no anti-trust harm to consumers, and no grounds for action.

  6. How to compete with free by phorm · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Offer a consistently superior contract. In the OS business would, offer a consistently superior product for free, and charge for a good service contract.

  7. Antitrust? by linuxhansl · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The court took a different view, focusing instead on how the GPL fosters new development.

    Why does it even matter what the court thinks about beneficial or detrimental effects to the software business? There are some folks who work on software in their own time and release it for free. Who will deny them their right to release whatever they own for free?

    What's next? A writer releasing short stories or books for free... Will we also need a court musing about whether this is violates antitrust law?

    This case should have been thrown out in the beginning.