Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Hyman Rosen]

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:
From the Lasercomb decision,
    <http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/cases/15PQ2D1846.htm
    We think the anticompetitive language in Lasercomb’s licensing agreement
    is at least as egregious as that which led us to bar the infringement
    action in Compton, and therefore amounts to misuse of its copyright.
    Again, the analysis necessary to a finding of misuse is similar to but
    separate from the analysis necessary to a finding of antitrust violation.
    The misuse arises from Lasercomb’s attempt to use its copyright in a
    particular expression, the Interact software, to control competition in
    an area outside the copyright, i.e., the idea of computer-assisted die
    manufacture, regardless of whether such conduct amounts to an antitrust
    violation.

The courts find copyright misuse when the copyright holders attempt to
use their rights improperly to restrain competition, whether or not that
rises to the level of antitrust. That's why the GPL almost certainly
would not be found to be misuse of copyright should anyone try to claim
that.