This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Comics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is a very badly written article, clearly written by somebody who does not know much about patents or misuse. It totally misses the point of the case, and emphasizes an irrelevant quotation. This could be somebody's idea of a joke on Wikipedia. At the very least it makes WP look unprofessional, or not to put too fine a point on it, amateurish.

No mention of stare decisis. No mention of Court's explanation that misuse is not antitrust. No mention of the Court's explanation oif why it considers Brulotte correct.

And what is that silly red chart in the External Links doing in an article about a Supreme Court case?

Whoever wrote this also did not bother to use the search box to notice that there is at least one other more substantive write-up of this case in another WP article. Patent_misuse#Recent_changes

Would somebody who knows something about the subject matter totally rewrite this, please? @Edcolins:? @BD2412:? @Bearian:? @GregJackP:?
  [[User:PraeceptorIP|@PraeceptorIP:]] (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now rewritten, mooting above comments. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Now assessed as a C-Class article. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]