On 2/25/97, Howard Knopf <knopfh[_at_]perlaw.ca> wrote:
>
> The U.S. Courts have long recognized the doctrine of patent law
> abuse and misuse under antitrust law.
Yes -- and they also long ago moved the doctrine to a "rule of reason" analysis, recognizing (thanks to Bill Baxter) that an exclusive right is not a monopoly (although sometimes it may contribute to a monopoly).
> They are slowly but surely broadening this approach to include
> copyright.
Slowly, yes indeed -- because a copyright is even less likely to contribute to monopoly than a patent is. And hardly surely -- the cases are relatively rare and sporadic.
> For example, see Lasercomb v. Reynolds, 911 F. 2d 970 (4th Cir.
> 1990).
A case with extremely unusual facts, and probably wrongly decided in any event.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:24 GMT