GPL Price-Fixing Lawsuit Dismissed 154
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.'"
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:2)
But the trial only lasted 10 minutes, so that's $140 / 10 min, or $840/hr!
20hrs * 840 = $16800 (+ the filing fees and such).
Painful lesson, if the numbers are right.
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:2)
Ouch indeed!
-nB
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:2)
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:2)
The part that tiffed me was the cop called the but a fire hazard. It was in the middle of a square mile of concrete and was raining.
-nB
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:2)
As for construction zones, you're pretty much screwed if you do anything even slightly out of the ordinary, and then you get the fine doubled in most areas.
oh and that list reminds me of this from "Liar Liar"
Cop: You know why I pulled you over?
Fletcher: Depends on
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:2)
And in NJ they just call an area a "safe corridor" and can double fines also... this also applies in 65mph zones
and I agree about the funding the court thing. The "unsafe operation" charge cost a total of ~$433, with $250 of that being a "state surcharge" in order to make the state more money.
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:2)
Its almost amazing the responses you get from people when your honest with them.
I recommend everyone give the honest approach a try sometime. It almost pisses people off when you are honest with them.
I knew a guy that got
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:2)
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:2)
Re:How much do "court costs" usually run? (Score:2)
Why would you want to send anyone to Georgia?
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
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)
Re:I love irony (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I love irony (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I love irony (Score:2)
Re:I love irony (Score:2)
Re:I love irony (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I love irony (Score:2)
and yes, i know this is likely a troll, so don't bother with a YHBT reply.
Re:I love irony (Score:5, Informative)
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!
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)
Which only goes to show the fallacy of people thinking they can pick up a new language in a few hours, days, or even weeks. Without knowing the language, syntax, common assumptions, definitions, and design patterns, the standard functions, and the underlying framework that supports it, your understanding of what a given piece of code (contract) is going to do when executed is going to be, shall we say... less than
Re:I love irony (Score:2)
> the fallacy of people thinking they can pick up a new language in a few hours, days, or even week
While I agree that part of the problem with trying to understand any technical document, whether engineering or legal, is the need for serious study of the relevant discipline's language, in my experience in the legal profession the prior poster is also correct that bad logic, holes, loose language and so forth is also very common in legal documents.
Part of the problem is that law is, unlike engineering
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)
>Parsing failed: unterminated string
True ... and funny ... and a little more evidence of me point!
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:2)
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.)
Re:I love irony (Score:2)
But slashdot is (or at least pretends to be) a technical forum and so everyone here _should_ know technical jargon. As always, language used should be appropriate to the audiance - if you're talking to a bunch of techies then technical jargon is going to be ok but legal jargon probably isn't - similary if you're talking to a bunch of lawyers then they're not going to have a clue about technical jargon but will be fine wit
Re:I love irony (Score:2)
Blindly quoting from a legal blog and slam it here for being jargon makes as much sense as slamming a Slashdot article for being jar
Re:I love irony (Score:2)
I don't think the complaint was that Groklaw was using legal jargon, it was that the front page of Slashdot was using legal jargon...
Re:I love irony (Score:2)
Re:I love irony (Score:2)
I agree that using terms unfamiliar to those outside of the legal rhetorical community does make it harder to understand, but using common terminolgy doesn't make it easy.
Time for Fox News to... (Score:3, Funny)
Mod parent up - funny (Score:2)
cheers...ank
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.
Re:Time for Fox News to... (Score:2)
The problem with lawyers is their lack of a sense of humor. I should know I'm the son of a lawyer, and the husband of another.
Re:Time for Fox News to... (Score:2)
Oh well, at least I didn't break into a Flame and tried to answer intellegently and thoughtfully. I've been modded Troll a couple times lately, guess the job is really getting on my nerves. My bad.
Re:Time for Fox News to... (Score:2)
mmmmm tequila for breakfast....
agree in part, disagree in part (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Time for Fox News to... (Score:2)
An activist judge would have abolished copyright, or mandated the use of GPL in software, or something like that.
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.
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:2, Informative)
You don't seem to understand what an appeal is. There has to be grounds for an appeal, and when in appellate court there is no second trial. There is no jury. There is no prosecution. Guilt has been decided and the convicted must appeal that decision by proving the trial was unfair in some manner, or by showing that it was impossible for the con
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)
When you're done misinterpreting what I said, it is because it was too tedious to deal with 99.99+/-0.01% to get the point across, and it'd serve no purpose. I think if you could put it in numbers like that, you would already have reasonable doubt. The difference in logic seems to be there though.
Also, appeals in the US (and I would hope probably most places) only consider matters of
Re:the system (Score:2)
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.
Umm yes. A successful appeal results in the first ruling (or some portion thereof) being overturned. The first trial is essentially declared invalid. The "second prosecution" is a retri
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.
Re:I love it! A crackpot fine! (Score:2)
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.
Heh! (Score:2)
My only concern is that it might inflame the Linux vs. Gnu/Linux wars, given that the judge implied that Gnu/Linux was indeed the correct form. It would not look good if a breakaway L
Re:Ruling Is On The Money (Score:2)
Re:Ruling Is On The Money (Score:2)
If Judge Tinder were really that astute, he would have made this more clear in his order, and left out the dicta about the GPL.
No the Judge was correct, The GPL has nothing to do with price fixing because it does not prevent you from charging someone for software that you create.
Re:Ruling Is On The Money (Score:2)
Re:Ruling Is On The Money (Score:2)
Just to be clear, you can charge for a copy of a piece of GPLed software. You cannot charge for a license to use, copy, or distribute GPLed software.
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
GPL sets a price for the license (Score:2)
Yes, it does.
The GPL sets a maximum price for licensing GPLed software. That price is zero. That is different from charging for physical copies. You may charge whatever you can get away with for the copy. The license is free. That is why the GPL says:
T
Re:GPL sets a price for the license (Score:2)
That's not the GPL. That's just copyright. Since I don't own the software, I can't sell licenses for it. I can't sell licenses for Microsoft Windows XP Pro either, except possibly to transfer the one that I have.
Re:Reading comprehension, man. (Score:2)
I suspect you are thinking that "being able to see the source code" == "GPL". If in fact Microsoft+IBM gave away the software for free and did not give anybody else the ability to give away the same software for free (ie by either keeping it closed source, or releasing the source with normal copyright and no GPL exceptions to the copyright restrictions
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
Wrong target (Score:2)
He should have gone after Microsoft, a company that has already been convicted under Sherman Anit-Trust. Even then he should have gone after them AFTER trying to market a viable product.
Daniel Wallace lost this argument TWO years ago (Score:2)
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:2)
There's nothing here that serves as any vindication for the GPL.
Re:WallaceOS (Score:2)
He's not necessarily wrong. It's not that there is anything wrong with the GPL, but if competitors got together and agreed that they would all GPL their stuff, it's no different than if they got together and agreed to sell their stuff for $x. Whether that would constitute a crime is a different question that has nothing to do with the validity of the GPL.
There's nothing here that serves as any vindication for the GPL.
The GPL doesn't need to be vindicated because it has nothing to do with how much software c
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.
Re:WallaceOS (Score:2)
Do you have any references for that? No I'm not kidding, do you?
Re:WallaceOS (Score:2)
Just the web page [danwal.com] he made for it (before you click on this link, be *VERY* sure you really, really want to know. You Have Been Warned.)
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:WallaceOS (Score:2)
Re:His Name is Daniel, not William (Score:2)
(I had to do it)
Re:His Name is Daniel, not William (Score:2)
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)
Lesson 1: I don't yet understand (Score:2)
On the other hand, I don't believe I quoted PJ out of context, so if there's a misunderstanding in the story either she (a paralegal) doesn't get it (less likely) or I mis-cited her (possible, but I tried to be careful).
Still, I was already chuckling from one of the other replies to the AnonCow grandparent who said that slashdot doe
Re:Court Costs (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].