Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court To Decide Whether Or Not You Own What You Own
Jafafa Hots writes "The Supreme Court is set to decide, in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, whether or not First Sale Doctrine applies to products made with parts sourced from outside the United States. If the Supreme Court upholds an appellate ruling, it would mean that the IP holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it. Your old used CDs, cell phone, books, or that Ford truck with foreign parts? It may not be yours to sell unless you get explicit permission and presumably pay royalties. 'It would be absurd to say anything manufactured abroad can't be bought or sold here,' said Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment lawyer and Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation who specializes in technology issues."
Almost any electronic device and all autos made after the 50s or 60s that has an imported part of some sort. Do we take it to the next level with minerals and metals imported too? I think this has about as much chance of standing as a two legged stool.
When something is sold, it is no longer the sellers, it's the buyers.
This rediculous IP notion has gotten out of hand.
That would certainly deter me from buying products that were manufactured or contained parts that were manufactured abroad.
But it would incentivize companies to build stuff abroad. Once they've imported it they can voluntarily give purchasers control over it anyway if that helps build sales, but it's something they can turn on and off to their own benefit. If they build in the US then they don't have the option. So why build in the US?
Actually no, it will be the opposite.
It sounds like they are gouging the hell out of their US customers if this guy can buy the same book abroad, pay international shipping on it, probably import duties etc. and still make $1.2 million dollars. Instead we have another case where a "rights holder" is trying to assert insane terms on the rest of country to preserve their business model. Let us hope that the Supreme Court hears this on one of its "non-crazy" days.
It's not just a problem with electronics. I might have Chinese light fixtures, or Mexican light switches, plumbing etc. in my home. Will I have to get permission from 50 different companies before I can sell it?
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
I predict an obvious but subtle castigation of lower courts for it getting there at all.
But when did we lose common sense? Can't a corporation think it's way out of a wet paper sack?
Clearly the solution for them would be to raise prices abroad.
This parallels drug importing I suppose as well. Same solution imho.
Oh wait...nobody abroad would pay that much for a book? Then maybe you're gouging the US market and as a judge I'd say you've made your profit here via gouging and abroad by what you were willing to sell for under no choice but your own and what the market will bear.
Tough Shiite.
So if upheld then Apple (or indeed any American corporation that utilizes offshore manufacture of products of their own design) could forbid resale of their products so that you could only ever buy new from them.
Seems like a win for them.
The case is regarding items manufacturered in foreign countries and intended for sale in those countries. NOT items manufactured in foreign countries intended for sale in the United States. At issue is having someone buy things cheaper overseas and resell them cheaper here in the US than the manufacturers intended US price.
That's still horrible - but not nearly as bad as the article summary would have you believe.
The guy who's being brought to trial seems to have imported enough textbooks to earn $1.2 million. That means this isn't really a case about reselling your car, but about whether private citizens can buy a bunch of stuff abroad and re-sell it here for profit because it's cheaper abroad.
You can track the legislation here:
So having read the article, it doesn't say the same thing as the summary. To be fair, I haven't read any of the court paperwork, so the publisher could indeed be claiming that you cannot sell something with foreign parts.
This case, however, stems from a student buying textbooks at lower cost overseas and then selling them in the US on eBay.
I'm not saying it's good, right or proper that the publisher wishes to restrict these sales. I simply want to highlight that it's a very different proposition saying you cannot resell in the US a complete product purchased in a developing market where the manufacturer sells at a lower cost as opposed to being unable to sell anything that contains a foreign part.
I believe the situation the publisher supports is already the case in Europe, where Levi Strauss won a battle against supermarkets who were importing grey market denims and selling them at a lower cost than licensed distributors could buy the jeans in the UK.
So the the best example of something wholly made 'made in America' is a weapon.
Well done.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
But since we already have right of first sale, the presumption has always been that it is our property, and that we are free to sell it.
This would literally change it so that everything is essentially licensed, and you don't own it.
And, I'm sorry, but given what people pay for their cars, the idea that we would need permission to sell it (or almost anything else) is kind of scary.
This kind of thing is truly getting ridiculous, and IP law will have fully jumped the shark.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Even worse, many items are made from petroleum. Just think of plastics and everything made from plastic or incorporating bits of plastic (I see some vinyl in that there car, sonny, and the tires are made of rubber). Now some of the petroleum used in making those plastics and related synthetics might have come from wells in the USA, but some might not and it tends to get blended during or after refining. The provenance of such intermediate materials is not tracked.
So we have another question: how much transformation of a foreign-sourced raw material or intermediate material derived therefrom would be needed to escape the consequences of this putative ruling? Would shaping foreign wood into furniture be sufficient? What about polymerizing a foreign-sourced material (making an intermediate of plastic or ceramic or rubber)? Even supposing a strict boundary could be defined for the amount of processing or transformation required, it would just lead to the creation and feeding of loophole-finding (or making) industries.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Justice Thomas has stated he does not feel that he is listening when he is thinking about what to say, so he does not ask questions. It is flame bait to claim that he is sleeping. The interesting thing is that some of the pro corporate stuff comes out the liberal side of the court. For instance Keho, this was where the supreme court decided that the government could seize property via eminate domain and give it to a corporation. The logic was that the government would receive more tax revenue from the new use. The conservative side produced citizen united which basically lets corporation give unlimited money to political speech.
In a world where patent trolling is rampant... you'll see it happen, and unfortunately, if the ruling is upheld, you'll very likely if not definitely see the following:
- Pawn shops out of business
- 'legit' used car market evaporates or used car prices skyrocket to nearly the price of new (with all of the extra money going to the IP trolls)
- Trade stores (Gamestop, Trade It, etc) out of business
- Thousands upon thousands of jobs lost
- Billions of dollars in revenues (both tax and trade) disappear
- If they make it retroactive, lawsuits and repossession of property en masse
- If the law is applied evenly, the real estate market gets even more thoroughly screwed up than it already is (you sure that lumber and drywall is US produced? what about the wiring? light switches? ceiling fans? refrigerator? glass? vinyl/aluminum siding sheets? PVC pipe? faucets? the list goes on.....)
This comment represents a really deep misunderstanding of the question before the court, which seems to be reflected by most of the comments on this thread, unfortunately. Sorry to pick on you, but you're early in the list.
The misunderstanding is that this law specifically applies to products imported without the permission of the manufacturer. And it only applies to copyright, because copyright is where the doctrine of first sale applies. It doesn't, for instance, apply to patents, nor even to trademarks. The case turns specifically on the question of whether the doctrine of first sale applies to a product purchased in a foreign country, imported into the U.S. without the permission of the copyright holder, and then sold here in the U.S.
So unfortunately this will not serve to boost American manufacturers, unless they can propagandize people into believing something that isn't true. But it will serve to further restrict grey markets, allowing copyright holders to continue charging different prices to rich Americans than they do to rich Europeans.
This would be the kind of court decision that would have Congress write an amendment codifying right of first sale, and having the House get somewhere around 418* "Yea" votes, followed by about 95* in the Senate. Obama would sign it, and roughy 50 states would ratify it.
Not only would it be the fasted amendment ever ratified, but it would be a clear message that the Supreme Court can go to hell if they're going to fuck around with the way commerce has worked in this country since before it was a country.
* there's always a few cranks that vote against the obvious flow, just to get their name in the press with a few quotes. They just want to grandstand, and nobody pays attention to them anyway.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Except that any sane company is going to go out of their way to manufacture as much as possible outside the U.S. so that they get to decide whether or not you can sell it. If I'm an electronics company, and I can build the phones I'm going to sell in America, in either America or China, and you need the manufacturer's permission to sell something not bult in America, why would I build in the U.S.? If I build in China, I can force my customers to buy new phones because they aren't allowed to buy used ones.
There have been hundreds of thousands of students from Asia who knew the price differentials. None of us thought of exploiting it by arbitrage, because we knew it was "wrong". This creep from Thailand did just that.
Actually, engaging in this sort of arbitrage is virtually an American tradition. The only reason there's a lawsuit here is because there's intellectual property involved. If someone discovered that they could purchase Widget X in Country B at a lower price than in Country A, then bought a lot of Widget X and imported to Country A to resell at a higher price, we'd typically call them smart or at least entrepreneurial. Not to mention that consumers in Country A benefit from lower prices.
But since this involves copyright, normal logic goes out the window, and we're told that a book, lawfully purchased in Thailand, cannot be lawfully sold by its purchaser in the United States... because OMG WE NEED DIFFERENTIAL PRICING. You know what? Not my problem. Don't use copyright law to outlaw arbitrage. You want to make your differential pricing more effective? You could translate it into the local language, that'd be a huge barrier to reimportation and reselling.
BTW, this is the exact issue brought up in the Omega v. Costco case - except there it was even more ridiculous, since the copyright was on a design that happened to be stamped on the watch. Currently Costco is apparently winning the issue, since they're arguing that Omega is engaging in copyright misuse in order to control distribution of a normally uncopyrighted object (a watch).
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Except that Kelo was completely constitutional. It says right in the constitution that the government can seize property as long as they properly compensate the previous owner.
I actually saw this happen in a nearby city. There was an area predominantly populated by fixed income, older people who owned their own homes mortgage free. The city decided that they wanted to build a commercial area there. Cities hate residents, because residents cost them money, while commerce pays them money, so it is easy to understand why they would want to move commercial in. They ended up making lowball offers on hundreds of houses. Some people took them, some didn't. The city would also let you move your house, but they would only approve the moving permit from the city's chosen contractor, which was expensive. The longer people stayed, the lower the offers got, until finally some people had their house condemned out from under them for refusing to sell. Those who did move had to go from having no mortgage to having a mortgage on a more expensive house because most of these houses were in the $50k range and houses nearby that were available cost more like $75k, and they were only compensated about $35k for their houses. The city determined that was fair market rate because they were just going to tear the house down anyway, and nobody else would offer anywhere near $35k for a house that was going to be torn down.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Man, I want to live in your United States, and not the real one that we have. Here's what would really happen in Congress if the USSC came down on the side of corporations in this decision: Nothing
If, for example, a car has zero resale value by law, it will immediately be worth a lot less to a buyer than a similar all American made car.
The Supremes would have to have several extra holes in their heads to even think about making such a ruling. They would destroy many billions of dollars in value with a single bang of the gavel. They would have a dreadful time sorting out the issue of anything bought prior to the ruling where the decision was in part or in full based on resale, particularly if the explicit purpose was resale.
They would also wipe out major auction sites, any second hand store, all used car lots, and many retail operations. Destroying the entire underpinning of ownership in law is not appropriate for even the Supreme Court.