Slashdot Log In
GPL Price-Fixing Lawsuit Dismissed
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:13 AM
from the mostly-without-merit dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Lawsuit Says GPL is a Price-Fixing Scheme 850 comments
Soko writes "Yes, it's real. The crack team of Daniel Wallace and Maureen O'Gara have ganged up once again to protect their version of "The American Dream," he by filing a lawsuit in Indiana court saying the GPL is nothing more than a price fixing scheme designed to drive software vendors out of business, she by parroting the proprietary vendors' "The GPL kills business" mantra (as well as a few well placed insults at the free software community). I found the story on Groklaw - no links to Ms. O'Gara or Mr. Wallace from me. I'm still kind of dumbfounded at the audacity of Mr. Wallace, but wonder if he has an angle that might have a slim chance of prevailing." This Google search reveals some of Daniel Wallace's views on the GPL.
[+]
Technology: Wallace's Second Anti-GPL Suit Loses 303 comments
Enterprise OpenSource Magazine is reporting that Daniel Wallace's second Anti-GPL lawsuit has gone down in flames. From the (short) article: "The judge wrote that 'Antitrust laws are for 'the protection of competition, not competitors.' In this case, the GPL benefits consumers by allowing for the distribution of software at no cost, other than the cost of the media on which the software is distributed. 'When the plaintiff is a poor champion of consumers, a court must be especially careful not to grant relief that may undercut the proper function of antitrust.' Because he has not identified an anticompetitive effect, Wallace has failed to allege a cognizable antitrust injury.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just curious if anybody has any knowledge of the average court-cost payment?
-JesseRe:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:3, Informative)
Since I pled guilty and my trial (traffic) lasted ~10 min and my court costs were $340 or so here are some assumptions:
$340 total traffic court costs (the fine was an additional $600 BTW)
-$100 filing fee
-$100 bogus crap not charged per hour
=$140/hr for court costs.
Figure if he had 5 tries as TFS said to get it right and each try was half a day of mucking about in the courtroom:
20hrs * 140 = $2800 (+ the filing fees and such).
Since I'm talking out my ass on this one I'm goi
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:2)
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:3, Informative)
Only cost that matters.... (Score:3, Informative)
Having your case dismissed while simultaneously strengthening the GPL.... priceless.
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:4, Informative)
Courtesy of a post [groklaw.net] on Groklaw, court costs [law.com] don't include attorney fees (although they can be imposed, too). Another post [groklaw.net] in the Groklaw thread suggested a figure of about $2k (for the FSF's costs...), but PJ said [groklaw.net] 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
Parent
I love irony (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't know what the term pro se in TFA meant, so I went to answers.com, which helpfully corrected my "misspelling":
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.
Re:I love irony (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:I love irony (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I love irony (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I love irony (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I love irony (Score:4, Interesting)
>I guess that lawsuits based on ordinary language would be a disaster
...for much the same reason that software written in natural language [aaai.org] 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!
Parent
Re:I love irony (Score:2)
The biggest problem that I have when reading legal contracts and the like, as a software developer, is trying to avoid glaring at the enormous holes and more subtle flaws that pepper them. You'd think that such pedantic people would use tighter language, but apparently their feeble la
Re:I love irony (Score:2)
Too bad lawyers haven't learned to comment their code (and no, thousands of footnotes don't count!).
Re:I love irony (Score:2, Informative)
I know you're trying to be funny, but Google is your friend:
Query:
define:pro se
Definitions of pro se on the Web:
* A person who does not hire a lawyer and appears for himself/herself in court.
http://clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/glossary.asp [maricopa.gov]
* To act on one's own behalf; appearing for oneself; representing oneself; to represent oneself in a court action without a
Re:I love irony (Score:3)
Funny. I always thought that pro se was a good option for people who felt that justice shouldn't have an obscene cover charge. At least for those with the skills to represent themselves well.
Gotta love our justice system: by the lawyers, for the lawyers.
Re:I love irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps irony is when someone makes a post on Slashdot decrying the use of jargon.
(But I do agree with you, anyway.)
Time for Fox News to... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Time for Fox News to... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
agree in part, disagree in part (Score:3, Interesting)
Surprise, surprise! (Score:2)
Free, as in, you can charge whatever the bloody hell you want for this software!
Re:Surprise, surprise! (Score:2)
the system (Score:2)
Parenthetically, double jeopardy only applies when a mistrial is declared at which point the prosecution may or may not try to try again.
Re:the system (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:the system (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:the system (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, appeals in the US (and I would hope probably most places) only consider matters of law, not of fact. Trying the fac
Re:the system (Score:2)
That's not correct.
I love it! A crackpot fine! (Score:4, Funny)
"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.
Re:I love it! A crackpot fine! (Score:5, Funny)
The footnote on Page 2 is the price of the ticket.
Parent
Re:I love it! A crackpot fine! (Score:2)
Ruling Is On The Money (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Ruling Is On The Money (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft and IBM had gotten together and agreed to give away OS/2 and Windows, Apple would have sued them.
If Microsoft and IBM had given away OS/2 and Windows in a manner that guaranteed the OSes would always be free, Apple would lose that lawsuit.
The purpose of anti-trust law isn't to preserve competition in order to benefit competitors, it's to preserve competition in order to benefit consumers. "Dumping", selling below cost, is generally anti-competitive because its effect is to drive out compe
Re:Reading comprehension, man. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reading comprehension, man. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Reading comprehension, man. (Score:3, Informative)
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 a
Re:Poor Wallace... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:WallaceOS (Score:2)
In a way, I actually feel sorry for him - I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a lawsuit (with apologies to Charles Babbage). Or, phrased in a slightly different way... wtf was he thinking? It should've been clear to him from the
Re:WallaceOS (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:WallaceOS (Score:3, Funny)
Full of great - if slightly whacky - ideas that look promising but it almost always needs the GromitOS to get it out of trouble.
Re:WallaceOS - version 2.0 (Score:2)
/* FIXME: enable A20 and enter protected mode */
printf( "goodbye cruel world!\n" );
for(;;);
}
Re:WallaceOS (Score:2)
Re:WallaceOS (Score:2)
Re:His Name is Daniel, not William (Score:2)
(I had to do it)
Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that (Score:2)
Wrong, daddy-o. That comment came from PJ at Groklaw, not slashdot. Lookee here [groklaw.net]
It's the Order that tells Wallace to pay the Free Software Foundation's 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.
Re:Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that (Score:2)
Re:but (Score:2)
Oh, he's still trolling. He showed up on Y!SCOX this morning talking about how day5dumbass would have won on the merits.
You wouldn't expect a little thing like reality to deter these guys, would you?
yes, this is the important thing (Score:3, Informative)
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 [fsf.org] 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 [www.ifso.ie].