Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > don't you understand, stupid Hyman? > > "The copyright misuse defense is similar to an antitrust claim, where a > > copyright owner has misused the limited monopoly granted by the > > copyright. However, the Lasercomb decision made it clear that the > > copyright misuse defense is available even when the misuse does not > > reach the level of an antitrust violation." > > As always, poor Alexander can't read:
Stop being utter idiot Hyman. > From the Lasercomb decision, > <http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/cases/15PQ2D1846.htm "If, as it appears, the district court analogized from the rule of reason concept of antitrust law, we think its reliance on that principle was misplaced. Such reliance is, however, understandable. Both the presentation by appellants and the literature tend to intermingle antitrust and misuse defenses.17 <15 USPQ2d 1853> E.g.,Holmes, Intellectual Property, at §4.09. A patent or copyright is often regarded as a limited monopoly an exception to the general public policy against restraints of trade.18 Since antitrust law is the statutory embodiment of that public policy, there is an understandable association of antitrust law with the misuse defense. Certainly, an entity which uses its patent as the means of violating <911 F.2d 978> antitrust law is subject to a misuse of patent defense. However, Morton Salt held that it is not necessary to prove an antitrust violation in order to successfully assert patent misuse: It is unnecessary to decide whether respondent has violated the Clayton Act, for we conclude that in any event the maintenance of the present suit to restrain petitioners manufacture or sale of the alleged infringing machines is contrary to public policy and that the district court rightly dismissed the complaint for want of equity. 314 U.S. at 494. See also Hensley Equip. Co. v. Esco Corp., 383 F.2d 252, 261 & n. 19 [152 USPQ 781], amended on rehg, 386 F.2d 442 [155 USPQ 183](5th Cir. 1967); 8 Walker on Patents, at §28:33. So while it is true that the attempted use of a copyright to violate antitrust law probably would give rise to a misuse of copyright defense, the converse is not necessarily true a misuse need not be a violation of antitrust law in order to comprise an equitable defense to an infringement action. The question is not whether the copyright is being used in a manner violative of antitrust law (such as whether the licensing agreement is reasonable), but whether the copyright is being used in a manner violative of the public policy embodied in the grant of a copyright." > > The courts find copyright misuse when the copyright holders attempt to > use their rights improperly to restrain competition Yeah, yeah. Right from the GNU's mouth: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html "GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on you." regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
