Judge Agrees: Just Because You Dislike Open Source, Doesn't Make It Illegal

from the in-case-you-were-wondering dept

Tue, Mar 21st 2006 12:57pm — Mike Masnick

About a year ago, we noted a bizarre lawsuit by someone claiming that the concept of the GPL (General Public License) was a violation of anti-trust law as it was illegal price fixing that made it impossible to compete. It seemed laughable at the time, and it appears that a judge has agreed, throwing out the case and making the guy pay the legal fees of the Free Software Foundation for its troubles (found via Digg). The judge dismissed the case because the plaintiff completely failed to show specific anti-trust related injury as resulting from the GPL -- which suggests others could still go after the GPL under the same argument if they could present a better case. However, it still seems fairly ridiculous, since the GPL is simply a license choice. In fact, the judge even noted: "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." Just because something is given away free, it doesn't automatically make it anti-competitive. In many cases, it's actually much more competitive. It just means that the business model may be different or non-existent.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2006 @ 2:04pm

It is hard to compete with free. He should pay someone to take his software.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill Ross, 21 Mar 2006 @ 2:19pm

People have payed consumers to take thier products.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Smacky Mouse, 21 Mar 2006 @ 3:30pm

Ha
That's why Smacky favours mandatory executions for idiotic law suits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2006 @ 3:35pm

Maybe they have a point. If I made non-gpl software, and gave it away for free, and crushed the competition, and then used my newfound superiority to be bastardish (e.g. IE), i would look forward to getting smacked down for antitrustish behaviors. The GPL doesnt change any of that--it just requires that the software, once given away for free, stays free. So what? If it required that you pick your nose before you use it that would change just as much about the anticompetitiveness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liveman, 21 Mar 2006 @ 3:59pm

A must have
A GPL is there for the people or groups who do not have an unlimited budget. If I wanted a software I would look for a free version first but most of the time its better to go with the paying version because of its quality, and the GPL software ensures that the quality will be much greater or you won't buy it. Remember GPL's are not for companies its for the consumer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gattaca, 21 Mar 2006 @ 5:37pm

Re: A must have
GPL is the future of the software market and what it should've been all along. Human knowledge belongs to everyone. That includes businesses, consumers, organizations and governments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick, 22 Mar 2006 @ 2:32am

the redistribution rights in the GPL allow competi
If you make GPL software, and I want to compete with you, I can take your code, improve it, and supply it to my clients and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it (so long as I give my clients the source code).

Since my clients aren't going to be software companies making the same tools I am, they aren't going to be competing with me, so giving them the source isn't a masive risk for me.

My clients not only get the source code, they also have the fact that you're still around to use as leverage against me when negotiating their contract. Not as lucrative for me as being able to abuse a monopoly, but at least I'm still in business.

If, however, you were taking a loss on a proprietary product in order to give it to everyone for free and destroy my market, then there's nothing I can do - without access to the source and the right to modify and redistribute it, there is no way I can compete with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 22 Mar 2006 @ 6:10am

"... judge has agreed, throwing out the case and making the guy pay the legal fees of the Free Software Foundation for its troubles ..."

Now THATS justice!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jdragon, 22 Mar 2006 @ 1:41pm

The guy that filed this lawesuit is a freaking idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles Griswold, 26 Mar 2006 @ 4:07am

Re:
The GPL doesnt change any of that--it just requires that the software, once given away for free, stays free.

It's already been said numerous times, but it's worth saying again. The GPL isn't, never has been, and never will be about how much you pay for the software. It's about re-use of code. Yes, you can sell GPLed code. Red Hat (for instance) does it all the time, and is quite successful at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]