The granted monopoly power of both patent and copyright law does not extend to umbrella property not included in a patent or copyright. On appeal, the court found that Lasercomb's anticompetitive clauses within its license agreement were a misuse of copyright. Based on the patent misuse analogy, the copyright misuse defense was available to the appellants despite the fact that they had not agreed to the standard license agreement. Therefore, it was determined that Lasercomb should have been restricted from suing for copyright infringement by copyright misuse. The clauses contained in Lasercomb's standard license agreement were a misuse of copyright when suing for infringement of copyright of the Interact program. For these reasons, the appellate court reversed the injunction and reversed the award of copyright infringement damages. The Appellate Court found that the District Court had incorrectly inferred that a copyright misuse may not be a violation of antitrust law. Of more importance, the public policy of copyright laws were being violated by the exercise of Lasercomb's standard license agreement. This Appellate Court's reversal of this case recognizes copyright misuse as an equitable defense to an infringement claim. In doing so, the patent misuse defense in "Morton Salt v. G.S. Suppiger" was recognized as a legitimate analogy to a misuse of copyright. Jason Mazzone, "Copyfraud", Social Science Research Network (Jun. 29, 2006). Toshiko Takenaka, "Extending the new patent misuse limitation to copyright: Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds", Center For Computer-Law (1992). "Copyright Misuse Doctrine", Copyright Law - Copyright Misuse.