Also, it has nothing to do with Action #4. Lois is present in Action #1 and the triangle begins playing out in that issue from the start.

However, it’s not quite as simple as you are making it.

If DC loses the rights to Lois Lane, they also lose the rights to Clark Kent. Now, it’s absolutely true that DC has been downplaying the Clark Kent identity of Superman a great deal in the last few years—to the book’s detriment and the character’s detriment.

But if they lose Lois….they lose Clark. It’s as simple as that.

You also have to understand the concept of a derivative narrative or product.

The modern Superman story is a derivative narrative inspired and shaped by Siegel and Shuster’s original story. It’s not a case where they can just cut out the things that Siegel created and still have the rights to Superman. It’s just not that simple.

Now, another conspiracy I’ve heard suggests that DC has been intentionally cruel and bitter about Lois Lane since Joanne Siegel died last year out of spite and cruelty for her final letter to Warner Bros—a heartbreaking letter that many people in the press and the public seemed to side with and find very sympathetic.

As you are probably aware, Lois Lane was based, in part, on Joanne Siegel.

It’s still a conspiracy theory. So who knows. But it’s hard not to feel as though DC has gone out of their way to be intentionally spiteful about Lois Lane in the last 2 years.

Action Comics #4 (the origin of Lois Lane) is one of the issues that has been central to the Seigel/Schuster heirs argument.

First Superman flies rather than jumping, then the costume is changed and now ensuring that Lois is nothing more than a background character who can be shipped off at any moment supports DC’s argument that the current Superman has nothing to do with the Superman that Seigel and Schuster created thereby getting their way to continue using the character even if the S/S heirs win the rights for the old character.

Of course I could be completely wrong (seeing evil conspiracy plots where there aren’t any) and this turns out to be nothing more than another tired comic industry stunt to get a character into mainstream media (it worked).

http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2011/07/21/introducing-lois-lane%25e2%2580%2599s-new-boyfriend-jonathan-carroll

This of course is at Lois’s expense. It’s transparent manipulation.

There were many ways to handle this without making Lois the weapon to hurt Clark. Birthright showed how it’s possible to show Clark as an outsider without making Lois the bad guy. In fact she sticks up for Clark, even though she’s not interested in dating him at the moment.

Instead they decided to go this route. Why? For this very reason. So Clark can do whatever he wants with impunity. Lois even tells him to go out and find a lady friend. So what’s a guy to do , right?