Talk:Copyright misuse

Globalisation

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)

Should it? We call the article "Fair use", not "Fair use in the United States" even though it's a US-only thing. Other examples: Exclusionary rule, Double aspect doctrine (Canada), Doctrine of foreign equivalents, etc. etc. etc.

We do have the article Fair dealing in United Kingdom law but that's because fair dealing is a separate article covering the international concept. Amberkitten (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Relevance of Princo case

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.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)