According to US District Court Judge Gerard Lynch, a plaintiff filing an antitrust complaint has to provide a very substantive argument in order get the ball rolling. Merely giving a superficial recitation of the criteria required isn't enough, and with that, LimeWire's attempts to hold the music industry liable for antitrust violations were tossed out of court yesterday.

In the 45 page decision, Judge Lynch went a long way to describe the fact that LimeWire had no case against the music industry. LimeWire attempted to argue that the music industry had organized a conspiracy against the P2P developer and prevented it from being a legitimate competitor. The judge found that some of LimeWire's claims had merit, however they failed to show how their claims damaged their company.

Alleged conduct:

1) LimeWire argued that old school music stores MusicMatch and PressPlay were designed by the music industry to fix prices. If these two stores became the industry standard, they could charge whatever they wished.

2) LimeWire argued that all US based P2P firms were faced with the decision to be bought out by iMesh or face litigation. Additionally, LimeWire contends the music industry attempted to force the P2P company to obtain hash codes for its MagnetMix website from Altnet. LimeWire refused because it says Altnet's hash code patent is invalid.

3) LimeWire also argued that the music industry pressured ISPs not to do business with P2P companies. LimeWire also stated the music industry engaged in unfair business practices which include (1) hacking and exploring files of Lime Wire software users; (2) falsely claiming that Lime Wire “promotes child pornography” and is a “pirate” and “smut peddler”; (3) threatening users of P2P software with litigation, based upon information obtained by illegal means; and (4) pressuring artists not to license their works to providers of P2P software that were not owned or controlled by counter-defendants.

Justice Lynch dismissed much of LimeWire's claims except its iMesh/Altnet hash argument.

"Accordingly, Lime Wire has alleged sufficient facts to establish antitrust standing to challenge counter-defendants’ imposition of a mandatory licensing scheme for distributors utilizing hash-based filtering technology."

However, according to Judge Lynch, LimeWire was not able to identify which of the defendants were involved in the conspiracy.

LimeWire..."furnishes no clue as to which of the [thirteen counter-defendants] (much less which of their employees) supposedly agreed, or when and where the illicit agreement took place."

For now, LimeWire’s antitrust case has been thrown out of Federal Court. As LimeWire has yet to comment on this issue, it’s widely speculated that it may live on in State Court.

This story is filed in these Slyck News categories
P2P Clients :: LimeWire

You can discuss this article here - 3 replies