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.