Court Rules GPL Doesn't Violate Antitrust Laws 80
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."
GPL is a little tough guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Unbeatable price? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guy with no case loses to well funded corporation. (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM has both the law itself, and reams of money on their side. The other guy doesn't.
This is about as close as it gets to an "open and shut" case.
What's this? (Score:5, Insightful)
What Price? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Victory over a paper tiger (Score:5, Insightful)
Challenge was doomed because of the Constitution. (Score:4, Insightful)
From the good ol' Constitution, Section 8:
"Congress shall have the Power"... "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
The whole reason we have copyright is to promote the useful sciences and arts, which is exactly what the GPL is for as well, they simply use different methods.
Stifling market entry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, Linux "vendors" are really in the support business. Nobody is stopping anybody from opening up their own support business for any distro they want. It can't even be argued that the 'vendors" have some sort of unfair advantage because of exclusive access t5o the source code... because they are required to distribute it, for free, to anyone who wants it. Even direct competitors! The only barrier to entry for me from slapping a decal on my car and declaring myself a traveling Linux support tech for hire is that, well, I'd be a thoroughly useless Linux support tech. And blaming that on IBM just won't fly no matter how good my lawyer is.
Reply to geoffspear (Score:2, Insightful)
geoffspear wrote: "Umm, if you think that someone with no resources could be successfully prosecuted for violating antitrust laws, you probably don't understand antitrust law at all. If you're too small to harm your competitors though anti-competitive activity, then by definition you can't violate antitrust law."
IANAL but I don't think your statement is entirely accurate. I don't think a monopoly has anything to do with how much money you have or earn from your product. I could be wrong and if so I hope an actual lawyer will correct me but I believe that a monopoly is based on how much of a market share you control.
It would seem intuitive that if you controlled a monopoly share you would have lots of income from that share but in the case of Open Source many companies give the software away for free and earn their income through support services/contracts etc.
In a case like this your product could hold a monopoly share but if your services were not bringing in any money you could still be dirt poor.
'Victory over a paper tiger' NO NO NO (Score:2, Insightful)
"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."
You and a lot of other people will be rereading bits of this opinion for years. It was written for law school textbooks as much as it was to dispose of this case.
First off, it was a Court of Appeals decision, not a trial court. Second, it was Frank Easterbrook, a very well known and somewhat regretfully, well-regarded senior judge. He is a big in the Law and Economics school of judges and other judges pay attention to his stuff. He doesn't cream the plaintiff on something mundane like standing or another procedural issue. Instead, he deals clearly with the most basic antitrust and GPL philosophy issues imaginable. And he gets it right.
Unbeatable price? Yes, for end users. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only people who have to worry about the GPL are those who are going to redistribute the code.
Re:Unbeatable price? (Score:3, Insightful)
Users do not have GPL restrictions, only people modifying and distributing do.
The only restriction that might conceivably hit a user is if they give away Linux CDs, or sell PCs with Linux installed, as they become liable to distribute the source too.
Re:Unbeatable price? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzzt! Wrong, thanks for playing. The GPL itself says, in plain english, that you did not have a chance to see the GPL beforehand, you did not sign anything, you do NOT have to 'accept' the GPL - the software is free to do with as you please. The only reason you need to accept the GPL is IF you are re-distributing it or distributing modified versions of the software - that is all the GPL covers. That's it. NO ONE just using GPL software has to accept the GPL at all.