Talk:Copyright misuse
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Globalisation
[edit]Copyright misuse is a global problem and so this article needs to be either expanded to cover the topic as a whole or renamed to Copyright misuse in the United States and a separate article written about the global topic with sections (or subarticles) about the legal aspects in other jurisdictions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- It should be renamed. There is little or no copyright misuse case law outside the US. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Relevance of Princo case
[edit]Someone raised the question -- Is Princo relevant to a copyright misuse article? The answer is "probably not." Princo holds (or suggests in dicta) the opposite of Lasercomb, the ur-precedent in the field. Also Kimble may undercut Princo because it says not to use antitrust policy to determine what is patent misuse, but to use patent policy instead. By parallel reasoning, one would want to use copyright policy in copyright misuse cases, not antitrust as in Princo.
- (In Princo the CAFC refused to find patent misuse occurs when there us a coinspiracy to suppress an alternate technolgy, unless there is an anticompetitive effect comparable to that of an antitrust violation--a notion rejected in Kimble.)
Accordingly, the discussion of Princo should be substantially rewritten to indicate its problematic relevance, or else should be deleted.