US Supreme Court Upholds Right to Resell

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because the cost of doing business is very different in different parts of the world. That's a simple fact.
. . .

By levelling it upwards for the poorer parts of the world, I very much fear .

Harry, the problem with your approach is the problem we Americans face with drugs. We subsidize the research and manufacturing by paying very high prices, just to see the exact same drug, from the same plant and manufacturing line, sold, for excample, in Canada for 50% less. The reason for the price disparity is that it is illegal for Americans to import the drug from Canada and thus there is no pressure to reduce prices.

Our Food and Drug Administration and the drug manufacturers admit there is no difference at all between the American and Canadian versions, except for the market and that Canada controls drug pricing whereas America does not.

What Wiley wanted was to replicate the situation with drugs for books. Without the resale doctrine as SCOTUS upheld it, the already exorbitant prices paid for textbooks would likely increase in the United States because there would be no effective competition. Pricing is only exorbitant and not highly exorbitant today because of the secondary market.

As for other countries and that pricing might rise there, it isn't clear to me why Americans should be concerned. Why is it the American consumer's responsibility to subsidize non-American consumers?

[rkw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This was about importing textbooks from Thailand (where they're very much cheaper) and reselling them in the US. Such "grey imports" are illegal in the EU, for example, and there are very good reasons for that.

how is this any different from companies say US hospitals going to the Philippines in recruiting nurses? This has become thr standard here now. It displaces people who are highly trained but deemed too costly for the quarterly report.

I don't care if the precious all powerful corps feel so 'put upon' by having to live with the market environment they created. It's about time the pendulum started moving back toward the consumer. We must own the things we buy. It id also NOT the responsibility of said consumer to know s grey market item from a hole-in-the-ground. The corps can't continue to control everything in our daily lives. That id a very deadly end.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

but the prosecution wasn't looking for a ruling limited to those circumstances

Let's be clear. This was a civil case. There was no "prosecution," just a plaintiff.