In addition, the Court rejected Kimble's arguments that the "Brulotte" doctrine should be overturned because the practice it outlaws is not anticompetive and it does not violate the antitrust laws. The Court found this argument beside the point: "But "Brulotte" is a patent rather than an antitrust case," it insisted. Under the Court's legal analysis, "(not antitrust) policy gave rise to the Court's conclusion that post-patent royalty contracts are unenforceable—utterly 'regardless of a demonstrable effect on competition.'" Earlier in its opinion, the Court explained that it was well-settled that it was "patent law's policy [to establish[] a 'post-expiration . . . public domain' in which every person can make free use of a formerly patented product." The majority opinion is thus a strong rebuke to those analysts that seek to make the misuse doctrine a kind of petty antitrust law, in which antitrust principles of analysis dominate over policies unique to patent law; "Kimble" reaffirms many prior Supreme Court decisions that hold that misuse may be found in conduct that does not violate the antitrust laws.