Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > | Last time I looked, RedHat was getting money.
> >
> > This fact is compatible with Wallace's claim of predatory pricing
> > conspiracy pursuant to the GPL. Those ancillary revenues from "no
> > charge" GPL'd code can NOT "explain the lengths to which"
> > Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HRed Hat "has gone" (see below). It could
> > have been BSD and alike licensed code in its entirety which Red Hat
> > could have used to produce those ancillary revenues, and Wallace
> > doesn't have any problems with RedHat's use of BSD and alike
> > licensed code which doesn't price-fix IP at predatory level.
> 
> Reality check: bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example,
> the business model of Theo de Raadt.  His earnings are utterly peanuts
> compared to those of RedHat.

Bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example, the business 
model of Apple Computer, Inc. (OS X and Darwin). 

> 
> > The Judge in Microsoft antitrust case ruled:
> >
> > "Proof that a profit-maximizing firm took predatory action should
> > suffice to demonstrate the threat of substantial exclusionary effect;
> > to hold otherwise would be to ascribe irrational behavior to the
> > defendant. Moreover, predatory conduct, by definition as well as by
> > nature, lacks procompetitive business motivation.
> 
> But you are glossing over the fact that there is hardly a more
> competitive market than the Linux market.  It has hundreds of
> participants and a very low barrier of entry.

What you call "the Linux market" (packaging, patches delivery, etc.) 
are ancillary markets to the market Wallace's case is about.

regards,
alexander.