RE: I think I understand your point. However, I believe I read that the judge commented copyright was not a defense to the antitrust claims.
Charles, I'm not quite sure what the Judge meant, because the way you state it, it sounds like, "what ever you say, you loose". :)) A Copyright IS a legally protected monopoly.
-------------------------------------------
From the MS sur-reply brief:
Plaintiffs [DOJ] rely on Image Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1094 (1998), and Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994), to support their contention that Microsoft's exercise of its intellectual property rights may violate the antitrust laws. (Pls. Reply at 28.) The antitrust laws, however, do not negate the rights of copyright holders. See Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 195 F.3d 1346, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In Kodak, the court found "no reported case in which a court has imposed antitrust liability for a unilateral refusal to sell or license a patent or copyright." 125 F.3d at 1216. [emp add] |
