Doc Searls points to a great quote in footnote 13 of the Betamax case, but he left out the string cites, which are pretty stark support for the quote itself. Here are the Supreme Court's quote and the citations—

While the law has never recognized an author's right to absolute control of his work, the natural tendency of legal rights to express themselves in absolute terms to the exclusion of all else is particularly pronounced in the history of the constitutionally sanctioned monopolies of the copyright and the patent. See, e. g.,

United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 156 -158 (1948)

(copyright owners claiming right to tie license of one film to license of another under copyright law);

Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123 (1932)

(copyright owner claiming copyright renders it immune from state taxation of copyright royalties);

Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 349 -351 (1908)

(copyright owner claiming that a right to fix resale price of his works within the scope of his copyright);

International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U.S. 131 [464 U.S. 417, 433] (1936)

(patentees claiming right to tie sale of unpatented article to lease of patented device).

Yep. You give someone a monopoly and usually they start looking for ways to leverage that power. The law's job is to make sure the power stays limited. That's what the Eldred case is all about. Hopefully the Supreme Court will remember footnote 13, although I'm sure Lessig will remind them at oral argument if they forget.

[Ernie the Attorney]