Wallace V. International Business Machines Corp. Et Al. - FSF Lawsuit

FSF Lawsuit

In 2005, Daniel Wallace filed suit against the FSF in Indiana, stating that the GPL, by requiring copies of computer software licensed under it to be made available freely (without legal restriction), and possibly even at no cost, is tantamount to price fixing. In November 2005 the case was dismissed without prejudice, and Wallace filed multiple amended complaints in an effort to satisfy the requirements of an antitrust allegation. His fourth and final amended complaint was dismissed on 20 March 2006, by Judge John Daniel Tinder, and Wallace was ordered to pay the FSF's costs. In its decision to grant the motion to dismiss, the Court ruled that Wallace had failed to allege any antitrust injury on which his claim could be based, since Wallace was obligated to claim not only that he had been injured but also that the market had. The Court instead found that

he 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.

The Court also noted that prior cases have established that the Sherman Act was enacted to assure customers the benefits of price competition, and have emphasized the act's primary purpose of protecting the economic freedom of participants in the relevant market. This decision thus supports the right of authors and content creators to offer their creations free of charge.