| dbo:abstract
|
- Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990) is an appeal filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Initially, Lasercomb filed an action against Holiday Steel for breach of contract, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, unfair competition, and false designation of origin. The United States District Court ruled in favor of Lasercomb, awarding them punitive damages and actual damages for fraud, rejecting the defense of copyright misuse. On appeal, based on a recognition of the similarity to patent misuse, the holding was reversed, deeming the language contained in the license agreement unreasonable. (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 10282 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
| |
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:citations
| |
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:courtseal
|
- Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.svg (en)
|
| dbp:decidedate
| |
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Job Reynolds; Larry Holliday and Holiday Steel Rule Die Corporation (en)
|
| dbp:holding
|
- Court found the language in Lasercomb's licensing agreement to be anticompetitive and "egregious" and therefore amounted to copyright misuse, which barred it from suing for infringement of its copyright. District court's injunction and award of damages reversed. (en)
|
| dbp:judges
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
|
- Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Reynolds (en)
|
| dbp:prior
|
- Lasercomb Am. v. Holiday Steel Rule Die Corp., 656 F. Supp. 612, . (en)
|
| dbp:subsequent
|
- Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc denied on Sep. 27, 1990. (en)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990) is an appeal filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Initially, Lasercomb filed an action against Holiday Steel for breach of contract, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, unfair competition, and false designation of origin. The United States District Court ruled in favor of Lasercomb, awarding them punitive damages and actual damages for fraud, rejecting the defense of copyright misuse. On appeal, based on a recognition of the similarity to patent misuse, the holding was reversed, deeming the language contained in the license agreement unreasonable. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
