digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Open Source Sued - "Free" too much a competitive edge?

news.com.com — Plaintiff Daniel Wallace had sued the open source giants, contending that they had conspired with the Free Software Foundation and others to offer their wares at an "unbeatable" price (read: free), thereby squeezing competing alternatives from enterprising software writers like Wallace out of the market.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • frase, on 10/12/2007, -3/+131That guy's bonkers!

    Glad to see common sense prevail here.
    • shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+110nothing should be free because that would be unfair competitively to someone wanting to sell that thing for money.....

      [end sarcasm]

    • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+131Hurry up, let's sue somebody because the air is free.
    • neoform, on 10/12/2007, -9/+150Anyone have this guy's address? I wanna punch him in the face.
    • fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+40"People willingly pay for quality software even when they can get free (but imperfect) substitutes," the judges wrote in a six-page opinion

      Nice "victory" for open source lol.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+39Some other bonker in Britain tried to sue Firefox's creator for the same thing. Also failed utterly. How idiotic can people become!
    • LiterateWolf, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25It's how the markets work. If he wants no competition and free profit, let him move to Communist China.
    • Hurricane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20LMAO, what a moron.
    • Oakes, on 10/12/2007, -30/+5This is what you get for suing Microsoft for making Internet Explorer free. Looks like this chicken is coming home to roost.
    • webXL, on 10/12/2007, -25/+11"Anyone have this guy's address? I wanna punch him in the face."

      Nice mob mentality.
    • streak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The guy should have taken on the Federal government. It uses everyone's tax dollars to provide inferior software for free and stifle business.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7damn activists judges
      ;)
    • mighty_mouth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"People willingly pay for quality software even when they can get free (but imperfect) substitutes," the judges wrote in a six-page opinion"

      He is saying that the reason FOSS is not anticompetitive is that some people still choose to pay for non-free software.

      This implies that if people always went with the lowest-cost option (i.e. FOSS) and decided they didn't want to pay for software at all, the judges might have ruled FOSS was anti-competitive!!! Yikes!
    • fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@ mightymouth -
      He's not saying some people choose to pay for non-free software, he's saying commercial software is better so free software isn't a threat.

      Let me highlight some passages:
      "pay for quality software"
      "free (but imperfect) substitutes"

      Anyone calling this a victory for open source is illiterate. It's a loss for the plaintiff but it's in no way a win for open source.
    • mighty_mouth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"He's not saying some people choose to pay for non-free software"

      The judges did say that. Quote:

      "People willingly pay for quality software"

      Maybe I have misunderstood what you are trying to say.
    • fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13In other news, Monica Belluci is sued for being "too beautiful." Complainants, who wished to remain anonymous, claimed that there was no way to compete with Ms. Belluci, and further asserted that this was patently unfair.

      The judge, in issuing his ruling dismissing the case, said "Take off, eh? Life isn't fair, and neither are you." He said he would be willing to entertain counterclaims from Ms. Belluci in chambers.

    • fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Let me dumb it right down for you. The judge said free software is imperfect and commercial software is quality so free poses no threat to commercial.

      That is why this is not a victory for open source. Get it? He's saying free software sucks, commercial software is better, and people* are willingly paying for good software instead of using free but bad alternatives.

      * The judge doesn't say "some people", he says "people". Twice now you've added "some" and it should be clarified - some is a small subset of people. The judge isn't referring to a small subset of people, he's referring to the full-blown people. That's "persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general".
    • toomuchpete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@fkr2
      "Let me dumb it right down for you. The judge said free software is imperfect and commercial software is quality so free poses no threat to commercial."

      2 points here that might stop your incessant whining...

      The judge is most likely referring to the quality of substitution, not the quality of the goods. Most people will agree that, when it comes to webservers, Linux rules Windows. Nevertheless, Linux is an imperfect substitute for Windows. This is how economists explain how two similar goods in a free market have different prices: they are not perfect substitutes for each other... in other words, if you want one, the other will not be good enough. If you want Windows, Linux will not be good enough (and vice versa).

      The second thing to keep in mind here is that the court should be interpreted as saying this: "If you want to get paid for something that is being offered by someone else for free, yours has to be better than theirs in the eyes of the consumer. If it isn't, you don't get paid."

      Quit acting all hurt and insulted because some judge called Open Source an "imperfect substitute" for this guy's software.
    • Eggzb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Does it really mater if a judge call OSS imperfect? The users know whats up and that will be the main factor in how excepted it becomes.
  • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -89/+1shrewduser: troll.

    Whoever thought it is even funny to sue for that, should have thought twice.
    • shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+57what on earth are you talking about? do you even understand my rhetoric? i find it hard to believe someone could interpret that as trolling...
    • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -7/+44Ah, sorry, read it again now, I think I was just either mad or sleepy. You're right.
    • toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You must have been sleepy because if you cant remember if you were mad 5 hours ago you must have Alzheimer's...
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1actually the plantif was suing IBM and Red Hat, because they are pushing a free OS and other free alternatives thus closing the market to his proprietary software. In that context, he had a bit of a case... how is IBM "bundling" linux and other free apps like Apache, PHP, SSl, etc, with their servers not unlike MS "bundling" IE with their product?

      Debate.


      and yes, there is a difference, because IBM and Red Hat don't hold the copyrights to most OSS software.. that software has to compete with other products even though it's "free".
  • Leo55, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9i BET stallman is going to laugh his ass off.
    THIS is what stallman been working his ass off for.
    • rbanffy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Just hope RMS keeps quiet. Every time he says something I have to calm my clients down.
  • darkecho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20"The judges went on to knock down--and arguably mock--Wallace's arguments that people who release their software under the GNU General Public License are "conspirators" engaged in "price fixing.""

    Nice to see even the judges realized how ridiculous of a claim this was.
    • kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5alright. so at least 1 of the three branches of government understand the technological aspect of the market
  • bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39Heh. I once had a girlfriend, to whom I tried to explain free software. She was immediately offended at the idea that someone should offer software for free, ruining business for proprietary software manufacturers. Not unlike Mr. Wallace, I suppose...
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24No one but the people that are actually using Open Source and free software seems to understand. We do it because it is advantageous for us. We have all this free software that we can use for our needs. When someone writes new free software it's not because he want to sell it but because he want to encourage other people to develop free software that he can make use of. It's a market without currency plain and simple.

      Just like any other immaterial work it can not be traded for money without the state restricting freedoms because immaterial work is nothing more then an idea being copied and ideas are viral and free by the their very nature.
    • Nogger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+46> She was immediately offended at the idea that someone should offer
      > software for free, ruining business for proprietary software manufacturers

      She better not offer you sex for free, this really is ruining the business of women offering sex for money. And she better not let you see her naked again, this is depriving strip joints of business.
    • steeel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I'd tap that
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7originally it was all open source and free, this commercial crap invaded the market, even big ole ibm thought there was no money in software and that is why we have windows
  • fatlip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23if you cant keep up, ***** off!

    when closed source giants (ex: microsoft, apple) use open source, you know your argument is null.
  • Rooker156, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17oh boohoo. free stuff killed my crappier more expensive alternative :'(
    give me a break... The judges themselves found this funny.
  • socket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yes the dude is crazy. More then likely he's just not talented enough to make a living as a programmer and is taking it out on Linux. He's also more then likely not talented enough to contribute to a OSS project. So when you're a talentless hack what do you do? YOU SUE!
  • Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This fool is *still* in court!?

    This ***** is ancient... he lost a long time ago and the appeal is just now coming to a close?

    Wow!
  • Rooker156, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well there is one way I could see him competing with Linux. Write his stuff, put it out for free, and still offer to sell licenses to it; LIKE LINUX. sheesh
  • V1ncent, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Wow even legally they mock that Gimp or Open Office is an alternative to Photoshop or MS Office hehe
    • ScottMaximus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Ha!

      GIMP Sucks
    • msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No need to digg down Scott...GIMP does suck, and I'm a huge OSS fan. It's the least intuitive image editing software I've ever used. I still use it cause it's free, but I feel like I'm always fighting the UI to make it do what I want. Photoshop and Fireworks are better for the average user because of their UIs, not their capabilities.
  • llvllatrix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Begs the question: Who do we sue to enter the free speech market?
  • Llan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+48Here, I'll give you 10 € if you use my software.
    See, free is not unbeatable.
    • HalBSure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm still waiting...
    • PhireN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thats nothing, I'll give you $100 to use my software.
  • jjey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Wow, the millions this Open Source Cartel must be making in thier illegal dealings, all this time I've been a victim.. *thinks back to all the "free" lost to this group...*
    I know, I'll start using other regular software for free too, just to make it fair :) *opens Piratebay*
  • Snakedal337, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Retard. If your OS is better than linux, people will pay for it.

    Some will even pay if it ISN'T better..
    • bieber, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Sadly enough, that "some" actually comprises well over 80% of computer users.
  • nilcam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20this statement from the article is scary:

    They named Open Office, a suite of word processor, spreadsheet and presentation software designed as an alternative to Microsoft Office, and Gimp, an open-source alternative to Adobe Photoshop, as examples of instances in which proprietary software manufacturers have had no trouble hanging onto the "lion's share" of the market.

    does this mean that free software creators can be sued if they garner a larger marketshare than proprietary software?
    • mighty_mouth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Perfect competition" requires, among other things, an atomistic market. This means there have to be large numbers of vendors/sellers; or else, by definition, the market is no longer "pure and perfect". So, yes, the judges might have been saying that we can't let FOSS get too big and powerful lest that distort the market.

      Of course, not everyone subscribes to the idea that "perfect competition" is all that perfect. See:

      http://georgereisman.com/blog/2006/05/platonic-competition-part-ii.html
    • $cirisme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think you're right, that could be a dangerous precedent. I would hope that, in the case of commercial Linux, the Courts would see how a company like Oracle can take the same software base Red Hat has, and compete directly with Red Hat.

      The Courts need to see that the commercial "vendors" don't sell an OS at all, but rather consulting/support services.
    • salmonmoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On the upside, if you're waiting for GIMP to be competitive with Photoshop, you've got years before any trouble.
  • macbookpromat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Open Source FTW!
  • mightme, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2It is like sex, if you can get it for free, why pay?
    • ScottMaximus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think you're missing something
    • daedalus1982, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2that and sometimes you have to pay for things you can't get for free. Tech support and patches. which following your sex metaphor would be akin to anal and fellatio on the freeway
    • fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"It is like sex, if you can get it for free, why pay?"

      Because the product of a true expert is just about certain to far surpass the quality of an amateur. In sex as well as software. It isn't a hob by for them, and they are motivated to provide the best service possible. Not always -- I think Linux and Apache are good examples of ultra-high quality product, whereas the Gimp definitely isn't -- and the occasional amateur sex freak has skills on par with a professional -- but by and large, the pro is going to have the edge.

      The amateur is more likely to want to be your friend, and may seem a lot more like you, but then again, you'll probably remember your experience with the professional your entire life, years after you've forgotten the amateur's name. You'll remember Photoshop doing just what you wanted, and you'll compare that to a memory of when the Gimp just wouldn't go ALL the way down on your image while simultaneously jiggling your pixels, no matter how you begged. :-)
    • covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@fyngyrz

      "Because the product of a true expert is just about certain to far surpass the quality of an amateur."

      You are assuming that open-source software is written only be amateurs, and that commercial software is written by experts. This simply isn't true. Most genuinely expert software engineers are likely to be attracted to open-source software as it lets them take off the shackles of commercial development - assuming of course that they aren't open-source developers by profession, which more and more people are. Conversely, anyone who has spent more than a few years in the industry will know that there are an awful lot of unmotivated and sloppy coders writing commercial software.

      Logic aside, there's the simple and observable fact that there is a huge amount of open-source software out there that hugely outclasses anything in the commercial space.
    • fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@covertbadger: "You are assuming that open-source software is written only be amateurs, and that commercial software is written by experts."

      No. I'm not. I specifically said "not always", and then I even gave examples; the gimp is an amateur project, apache and linux are not. You should really read before you post.

      @covertbadger: "Most genuinely expert software engineers are likely to be attracted to open-source software as it lets them take off the shackles of commercial development"

      (laughs), perhaps you mean, "it lets them take off the shackles of being paid for their work." :) FOSS is rarely a source of decent income. Yes, you can avoid the "shackles" of a boss, but then again, you end up with the shackles of the GPL, of responsibility for intersecting another entity's patent, the costs of development... as a programmer since the 1970's, I can tell you that the "shackles" of commercial development can be diamond encrusted and gold plated. Rarely is this true for FOSS. They sometimes come with pats on the back, but not always. Especially in situations such as the gimp where the product isn't even close to the commercial varieties of the application space.

      @covertbadger: "Logic aside, there's the simple and observable fact that there is a huge amount of open-source software out there that hugely outclasses anything in the commercial space."

      Oh, please. Your "fact" is a straw man: There are perhaps a hundred projects like that (and I think I'm being generous), most of the major ones we know about. Linux isn't one; it is better than windows, but worse than OSX. Apache *is* one. The gimp isn't one. Photoshop, WinImages, PSP, Ron Scott's QFX... they all kick the gimp's butt from here to the moon. Blender -- up to par, but not better than the commercial stuff. OO -- still not up to par with Office. GnuCash -- still not caught up to Quicken. Firefox, yes, right up there and definitely a little past the best browser, which is OmniWeb by quite a margin. POV-Ray? No, not even close. Pick from 10 or 20 commercial tracers that wipe the floor with it. PostgreSQL and MySQL -- no, sorry, Oracle is still ahead. Though I'd rate those two as commercial quality, if that makes you feel better. GCC? Nice, and VERY flexible, but not as nice as MS's or Apple's systems. I could go on all night, but I'm sure you have a rebuttal waiting. Fire away. :)
  • nogoodreason, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's inspiring to know everyone concurs this guy is an idiot. It would be a very scary day indeed if the judges ruled in his favour.
  • turbo2ltr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I like OSS just as much as the next geek (I use lots of it), but obviously none of you commenters have been in this situation. I have and it sucks. You spend thousands of dollars and years of development to come out with a product, only to have someone who has too much time on their hands copy your work and release it as open source. Sales plummet and you cannot make enough to recoup engineering costs.

    I'm not the type to file frivolous lawsuits, but I can see first hand where he's coming from.

    • prammy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Not necessarily.

      Lets take Photoshop and Gimp. Gimp does a lot of the things Photoshop does and for many people, Gimp will do the job. But Gimp hasn't even dented the market share enjoyed by Photoshop. Hell it hasn't even dented the marketshare enjoyed by pirated copies of Photoshop.

      Make your product a quality product. People would rather spend money to get a quality product rather than an average product for free. Or they might pirate your software, in which case you never had the sales anyway.
    • warsql, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3First of all, it you spend years on product development, you have already missed your opportunity.

      Secondly, you can make plenty of money from developing open source / free software. Look what Marc Fleury did with JBoss. Free development, alpha and beta testing, then made a lot of money from training and support services. Top it off with selling the whole thing to Red Hat for millions.

      Think outside the box.
    • keyrat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The proliferation of OSS is probably the best thing to happen to computers since the internet.
    • rbanffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@keyrat,

      Really, it happened before the wide adoption of the Internet.

      Yet, it only became a trend during the first boom. The net made it possible to reach a much wider developer population.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can't rightly decide you "own" some random concept from someone else's copyright work because you also wrote a program that also contained the same concept.

      If someone steals your copyright work, fine. If they do their own, none of your business.

      Imagine a world where crappy artists could get a "music patent" and decide to sue others who use drums or melodies? We'd all suffer.

      It's complete lunacy for companies to be able to stop legitimate hard-working copyright holders from writing their own software and releasing it under the GPL, and I *personally* think that nobody playing with a straight bat would allow it.

      If they can reimplement it in their spare time, and it's just as good, and they haven't seen your source, you have nothing to complain about except your project's crappy use of money.
    • chaos386, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If it takes you thousands of dollars and years of development to do what one guy can do in his free time, maybe you just suck and no one would have bought your product anyway?
  • Loie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4no respectable, talented software development team should ever find their product outpaced by an open sourced alternative. if a handful of coders scattered around the world working for free on their own time is able to make a superior product versus the company that has their entire working day and livelihoods on the line....the "pros" should find new careers.
    • turbo2ltr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Not all software comes from a "team" of developers.
    • Fitzavig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just look at Photoshop. They're still king of photo-editing software for the most part. Sure clones of it are coming out, but if the original work remains quality and hopefully better, then it shouldn't see any problems. Also the whole "people are used to it" bit will make it easier to keep customers.

      Plus it seems the OSS community creates things out of necessity more often then not (like that free version of flash because Macromedia essentially ignores the linux crowd).
  • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Did they copy your work or merely develop in parallel? If they copied your work, you sue them under copyright infringement. Nothing wrong with that. If they merely came up with a similar idea, developed it in parallel, and then released it first this is just the way it is. It would have been the same as if they were closed source and merely went to market first.
    • turbo2ltr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1More of a reverse engineer my work/ideas. Their development didnt start until we had released ours. I guess "copy" wasn't an ideal way to describe what happend.
    • Markie1006, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Unfortunately if it was so easy to produce a clone in such a short time, it was probably too trivial to encourage people to purchase anyway.
    • Fitzavig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess you could say you're seeing the "dark side" of OSS there. If they make a better product, people will use it. Heck, some cheapos like me will even use it if it's inferior since it's free and gets the job done.

      You have to admit though that it's akin to a competitor releasing a very similar product at a much cheaper price. The wallet has a mighty big voice for some people..

      You have to realize here though, that software developers are trying to sell what is in essence an idea. With other products, there's a physical copy that requires a manufacturing process usually. With software, anyone can make it and distribute it at next to no cost for themselves. Just need the source code to create it (a veritable "recipe" of sorts).

      What were you working on anyways? You've struck my curiosity.
    • covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's not always that simple. Often, simply copying an idea isn't enough. I could write a search engine and make it look like google, but without their mindshare and capacity I wouldn't even be a ripple. Similarly with wikipedia, amazon, betfair, or even digg itself (hell, netscape PAID people to use their ripoff and it hasn't dethroned digg).

      Of course, a simple bit of desktop software without any external momentum is going to be vulnerable, but that's life.
  • Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Open Source is a philanthropic, humanistic activity. Many people find it inconceivable to have anything productive and useful that is also free. Sad that some people are so set in "life=money" that they can't figure out that something done for the betterment of humanity can actually be good and free.

    The people who support and produce open source material are the new age philanthropists.
    • Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yep, IBM, Red Hat, and Novell are the most altruistic and philanthropic organizations in the history of mankind. /sarcasm
  • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm far less concerned about open source being "free" as in beer. I'm not an RMS fan but I acknowledge his philosophy as one that has merit. I just don't believe, as he does, that all technology should be free to the people. This philosophy is extreme, in my view. I think OSS has it's place in the public sector. Government, in my view, has an obligation to use OSS or at least their formats in order to preserve openness. Government should be free to drop a company, or move to another should one go out of business, and have the taxpayer's data (i.e. all documentation) be transparently supported. I don't, however, think all software has to be open source. There's room for both.
    • streak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The government should foster open standards and use whatever software fits its needs best, either commercial or OSS. As for producing OSS, the government should stay out of that business entirely.
    • covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@streak

      Why so? If the government produces any software, it is with public money that they fund the development. Why shouldn't it be released back to those that paid for it?
    • streak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Simple. Governments shouldn't be in the software business or in the business of interfering with the software business. The inferior quality software distributed "for free" by governments can and does undermine markets.
    • covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What? So your argument is that all the public money the government spend creating or modifying software to suit their needs should be considered written off? That people shouldn't have a chance to review, modify, or improve the code that they have paid for to help run their country? Nice to see you value the way your tax is spent.
    • streak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1What? You want to coerce the public to use inferior software? You want to justify higher taxes and more government waste by having it get into the sofware business? You don't believe in greater innovation and improved efficiencies through a competitive marketplace?
    • covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Coerce? How did you drag that out of what I said? No-one is forced to use any software that the government might release. You want to justify higher taxes and more government waste by having it pay inflated rates to businesses to add needed features, who will outsource the work to India, rather than use the money to pay citizens to make the changes? And yes I do believe in a competitive market place - perhaps you would like to explain (with supporting evidence rather than rhetoric) how open-source reduces competition?

      I'm not sure if you're shilling for somebody or not, but you have very, very strange ideas about how tax dollars should be spent.
  • gforb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Open Source Robber Barons of the world unite!

    Certainly our hordes of riches will finance a coup!

    (Checks wallet) Okay, if not a coup, a new mansion and jacuzzi!

    Okay, maybe a night out with a limo, dinner and a movie...

    An off-campus hamburger?

    A packet of gum.

    Change anyone? Open Source Robber Baron, spare some change? Anyone?
  • dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1How quickly we forget!
    Remember music videos?
    The music industry sued MTV VH1 ect for playing music videos with out playing the bands or their agent, under the same idea that playing music videos for free is unfair competition. So now if you play a music video you have to play someone about $2000.
    Land of the Free if you can afford it!
  • rbanffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He will end up being hired by Microsoft as a prize.

    Or it may be just a coincidence Rick Belluzzo was awarded a high profile job at MS after ruining both HP's Unix business and SGI's whole business to great benefit of, guess who, Microsoft.

    True, this bozo deserves nothing more than a job at the cafeteria, though he may even be able to get some stock options.

  • strebormj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What an ass. Obviously, a profit-based lawsuit. Glad to see some common sense in a legal system that too often gives into shysters.
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Predatory pricing" is one of the things that Microsoft was sued for back in the late '90s.

    The anti-trust suit against them both charged them with predatory pricing of IE (free) before it was bundled with Windows 98, and then charged that the bundling itself was an anti-trust violation.

    How many of you were perfectly happy to see Microsoft get sued for this, but now thinks it's silly when an open source vendor gets more of the same?

    The fact of the matter is that *both* suits are stupid. Anti-trust laws protect the CONSUMER, not competitors. IMHO, any judge ruling on something like this must ask himself if the consumer is any worse off, and, if so, is it in such a way that can't be fixed by natural competition.
    • lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Actually anti-trust laws were made to protect competitors. This is indirectly beneficial to the consumer because more competition equals better quality and price. But there needs to be competitors for that to happen. Therefor, it was meant to protect the competitors.
    • covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ThinkFr33ly

      The difference is that MS didn't make IE free to benefit the consumer, they did it to muscle netscape out of business. Open-source isn't there to take competitors down (unless you listen to some of the more frothing anti-MS zealots), and in fact positively encourages competition. The mistake you are making is focussing on the 'free as in beer' aspect, whilst ignoring the fact that the source code is available to competitors to use and modify as they see fit, as long as they return the favour. Not exactly anti-competitive.
  • webXL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Free software isn't always as good the software sold for a profit. In a lot of cases it is, but there is more incentive for software developers to stay up late and plan more carefully to meet specific customers' needs. The more complexity in the application, the more coordination you need in development. Open source will probably get there, but everyone displaced by the "unfair" competition just becomes an open-source consultant and customizes the software to meet the needs of specific customers.
  • Brahma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And they thought they could write an OS from scratch? Morons..
  • MikeBasinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Although it only takes one crazy judge to agree this bozo to case issue.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Now what have we learned about the "Free" Market supporters? What they want is the ability to make a profit on something regardless of how it's done, not to make a profit based on fair market value.

    After seeing all of the people whining because prescription drug companies are now being forced to negotiate to lower their prices, I am absolutely not surprised that someone is whining that people are giving away stuff for free.
  • Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Someone Bitch Slap that guy
  • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Haha, i'm going to play devil's advocate, if the big coroprations conspired to sell like software software for 1 cent, just 1 cent. Then this would be anti-trust and a whole plethera of other legal stuff that big companies can't get together and do.

    So the fact that it's free means that this is okay? The difference is just that 1 cent?

    I don't mind open source or free software, i like it. But personally as a legal matter i have to disagree with the judge, when a group of individuals get together to offer like products to the public and fix a price, any price, even free, it is price fixing. I don't think being free matters.

    As for the GNU, well i don't think that's and issue. Digg me down if you like, but the laws don't say you have to profit off of it for price fixing to be illegal.
    • wolf08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Good point. However, are they selling their software, or their services? And do their services cost 1 cent?

      There is a large difference between selling a service or a product.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It can be shown that open source software does not price commercial software out of the market.

      That's what the judges found to be the case, because it is the case. For now....
    • meekerunger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I don't think that you can call free a 'price'. Price invites the assumption that you are giving something up for something else. Free is the price equivalent of 0/0 (zero divided by zero). It is undefinable when talking about price.
    • Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"It can be shown that open source software does not price commercial software out of the market."

      Didn't Borland have to abandon development of their Java dev tools because of Eclipse? That's what they claim, anyway.
    • chaos386, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That'd be a great argument, except for the fact that Red Hat DOES charge for their OS:

      https://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/

      Free in this case means everyone can access the source code, modify it, and redistribute it as they wish. Free as in Speech. You were just thinking of the "Free as in Beer" part, where some software is provided free of charge, but this isn't a requirement of Free or Open Source software, and was obviously not a factor in this ruling.
  • blitzman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Aren't there laws against "dumping" (selling below cost)? Giving away free software you developed is certainly below cost.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Open Source software as a concept is not a company of any kind, and is not selling anything to anyone or making (financial) profit from it.

      If you could extend those laws and concepts beyond actual commerce, you'd be able to sue charities/governments for giving aid in Africa free, because you sell food, or sue churches for offering spiritual guidance free, because you sell cosmic spiritual books.
    • markdr123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes, that's the predatory pricing rules for you.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
  • molten, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So this is what i440 has been up to.
  • mighty_mouth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The Courts need to see that the commercial "vendors" don't sell an OS at all, but rather consulting/support services."

    There is still nothing stopping a non-atomistic market from forming, which is what (I thought) this was about.
  • JudgeDredd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Where is the "asinine" tag? Oh, wrong forum. WTF? This is crazy.
  • NewPunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That dude has no common sense... love the judges remark, a quick look was all that was needed to reject it. Very good, dugg.
  • DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1she is cute!
  • sharigan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4our price unbeatable? fine.. we'll double our price :)
  • zombo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2One only needs to look at IBM's Eclipse project to see an example of how big business and free software can kill a market. In this case the IDE market. The man definitely had a case.
  • Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This kind of thinking is a cancer to intelect and it should be cut out of our society like any other caner.

    Losing the case is not enough. We need some open source punishment of ***** like this guy and Jack Thompson.

    Even trying to do the wrong thing should be punished.

    I'll be happy when this ***** has to flip burgers for the rest of his life because no developer would ever hire him.
  • Draje, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Next thing you know electric companies will sue people who use solar power.
  • ivanjs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3atdigg wrote:
    "Hurry up, let's sue somebody because the air is free.

    Speaking of which, thought this was a funny sign at a gas station...

    http://lyzrdstomp.com/images/freeair.jpg
  • truegodofwar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Price fixing means keeping prices high which is the opposite of free.

    This guy is an idiot.
  • bonzooznob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2An application is an application. OSS, or Free, or for profit.

    If you make software, you have to be aware that someone else, can make the same thing, for cheaper, or for free. Your business, will stay afloat, if you choose to make your application better (e.g. improve your app, provide services the others don't, etc.) Whining gets you nowhere.

    Finally, know when to "join them" or give up... e.g. if you were making a web search engine... and your name is not Google, its time to give up.

    As for the Eclipse comment above... depends on your view... I like Eclipse, but it takes to long to load, and doesn't handle some text editing options the way others do... I would still choose App X over Eclipse,...

    But to sue some company, cause they are providing a better service than you?... sounds like sour grapes.
  • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2***** you windows fanboys, go to hell. And yes, I mean those who ***** think everything should cost money, even your ***** air. GO TO HELL
  • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2P.S: When the judge said imperfect he REALLY didn't ***** know what he was ***** saying, he should try it first, then complain. You all windows fanboys should also die.
    • chaos386, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2He didn't mean imperfect "it's not as good as the closed-source alternative", he meant imperfect as in "they aren't exactly the same." It's an economics term used to differentiate between markets in which you have competitors producing identical items (nails, washers, pipes of standard sizes, etc.) whose only difference is price, and markets in which you have competitors producing similar, but not identical items (mp3 players, cars, movies, vacation destinations, etc.), which are different in price, features, quality, compatibility, etc.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.