U.S. Supreme Court may revoke the right to resell

[GreenMonkey]

Double standard here in the U.S.

It's totally OK to manufacture your stuff where the cheapest labor is, ship it over here and sell it with a region-lock or other protection.

When a consumer wants to do the same thing (import it from the cheaper country) it's a crime.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Daithi

The first trial was a jury trial. The appeal went to the Second Circuit so it was just decided by judges. Here is a better link on the case. This article also says, "[Due to this ruling] the first sale doctrine would not apply to goods made overseas." However, I don't know if this would really apply to all goods, or just copyrighted goods.

Just a note, here in Texas at least we've had a bunch of jury decisions overturned recently, solely on the grounds that the appeals court was (1) of the opinion that the jury wasn't competent to make a decision, and (2) that it could have a negative impact on Texas being a paradise for large companies. Of further note was that the Texas justices who have made those decisions were all of the same political party, and IIRC fairly recent appointees.

On a larger scale, however, if these judges really were deciding that foreign-made goods can't be resold without the original manufacturer getting a cut, then it would pretty much kill American manufacture. Why make goods over here that can be resold, when you could ship all your manufacture over there and get a cut whenever the goods are resold?

And I mean any goods, not just a few textbooks. The whole American secondary market for everything could be destroyed within a matter of hours.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by teh603

On a larger scale, however, if these judges really were deciding that foreign-made goods can't be resold without the original manufacturer getting a cut, then it would pretty much kill American manufacture. Why make goods over here that can be resold, when you could ship all your manufacture over there and get a cut whenever the goods are resold?

And I mean any goods, not just a few textbooks. The whole American secondary market for everything could be destroyed within a matter of hours.

The ruling that was made in the EU, if I recall correctly (and please anyone do correct me if I'm wrong) is that in situations where a manufacturer sold a product for a specific market, they were permitted to prevent its importation and resale into other markets. The case here revolved, I think, around things like Nike shoes, where they were being imported into the UK from the US (where they're cheaper) and resold. The courts ruled that it was legal for a manufacturer to maintain different regional markets. It's fine here to order such products from abroad as an individual, but not to import them for commercial resale.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The ruling that was made in the EU

Just because the EU decides something doesn't mean the same thing will be decided over here. Look at the Apple-Samsung case; after the rest of the world found in favor of Samsung, the US courts found in favor of Apple.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by teh603

Just because the EU decides something doesn't mean the same thing will be decided over here. Look at the Apple-Samsung case; after the rest of the world found in favor of Samsung, the US courts found in favor of Apple.

Certainly, I fully appreciate that. Just illustrating what the logic might be for such a verdict.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly, I fully appreciate that. Just illustrating what the logic might be for such a verdict.

If "It could have a bad effect on businesses in Texas" is a justification for revoking a judgement, then I'm not really sure what kind of logic to expect. Insane Troll Logic, perhaps?

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The ruling that was made in the EU, if I recall correctly (and please anyone do correct me if I'm wrong) is that in situations where a manufacturer sold a product for a specific market, they were permitted to prevent its importation and resale into other markets. The case here revolved, I think, around things like Nike shoes, where they were being imported into the UK from the US (where they're cheaper) and resold. The courts ruled that it was legal for a manufacturer to maintain different regional markets. It's fine here to order such products from abroad as an individual, but not to import them for commercial resale.

Can the individual importer then sell later on, non commercially? For instance, a friend of mine imports japanese toys and video games for his own personal collection, and occasionally he'll sell something to prune his collection back, or trades to get something else. Would that be allowed?

Also, if it is, would it be allowed for him to sell to a company that would do commercial resale (IE selling his games to a company like Gamestop)?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Can the individual importer then sell later on, non commercially? For instance, a friend of mine imports japanese toys and video games for his own personal collection, and occasionally he'll sell something to prune his collection back, or trades to get something else. Would that be allowed?

Also, if it is, would it be allowed for him to sell to a company that would do commercial resale (IE selling his games to a company like Gamestop)?

I honestly don't know, I'm afraid. Common sense would say "yes", but we're talking about the law here .

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I honestly don't know, I'm afraid. Common sense would say "yes", but we're talking about the law here .

I can't see why this would be legal.
In case case someone has bought something from outside the EU, and then sold it within, and has made money from it. Why should they be treated differently?

[teh603]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I can't see why this would be legal.
In case case someone has bought something from outside the EU, and then sold it within, and has made money from it. Why should they be treated differently?

Dunno about the EU, but generally law enforcement will overlook such things unless you're being horribly blatant about it. Having five or six garage sales a year, for example, would prod them into action. An old guy bringing some duplicate books from his collection to a gun show to sell, however, might not.

Not that it makes all of that legal. It just means that the cops have bigger fish to fry.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I can't see why this would be legal.
In case case someone has bought something from outside the EU, and then sold it within, and has made money from it. Why should they be treated differently?

Because private sale is legally seen as something different than commercial sale. Private sale is a one time thing, and likely will never be repeated, commercial sale, the intent is profit and the person will attempt to do the same thing again. Private sale, profit isn't guaranteed or even expected. On my friend with his toys and games, he doesn't profit from them. Most of the time he just trades for something else he wants.

[Quexos]

I am not concerned. Last time I checked the US supreme court has no jurisdiction where I live.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Quexos

I am not concerned. Last time I checked the US supreme court has no jurisdiction where I live.

But how often is it "Monkey See, Monkey Do" in regards to international commercial law and politics. Both US and EU tend to do things that the corporations want, and not what anyone else wants.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Because private sale is legally seen as something different than commercial sale.

That isn't the case in the UK regarding copyright infringement (by actually making copies). Making a copy for sale is a criminal offence, whether it is a private sale or in the course of a business.
That doesn't mean that the same would apply here though.
I think parallel importation is dealt with as a trademark issue rather a copyright one in the UK/EU, and there infringement does require that the act be carried out on a commercial basis.
In that case, someone selling a game they have imported and played to GameStop would be ok, but GameStop could not legally resell that game.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Quexos

I am not concerned. Last time I checked the US supreme court has no jurisdiction where I live.

The same acts are already illegal in the EU.

Edit: As discussed in a UK Supreme Court case:

It has been accepted ever since the decisions of the Court of Justice in Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co. KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Case C-355/96) [1999] Ch 77 and Sebago Inc v GB-Unic SA (Case C-173/98) [2000] Ch 558, that the combined effect of articles 5 and 7.1 of the directive is to confer on the trade mark proprietor the exclusive right to control the first marketing in the EEA of goods bearing his trade mark, even if they are genuine goods which have previously been put on the market by him or with his consent outside the EEA. This is the only right attaching to the trade marks which is relevant in the present case. The subsequent decision of the Court in Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Ltd (Joined Cases C-414/99 to 416/99) [2002] Ch 109, underlined its absolute nature by establishing that the consent of the trade mark proprietor had to be such as to amount to an unequivocal renunciation of the right. It could therefore rarely be implied, and never from the mere fact of his having placed the goods on the market outside the EEA and/or his silence on the question whether they had been lawfully placed in the market within the EEA: see paras 53-56. These decisions are understandably unpopular with parallel traders not forming part of the authorised distribution network of the trade mark proprietors. But they are securely established as part of the legal order of the EU in the domain of trade mark protection. Proposals to modify their effect or to adopt a rule of international exhaustion have been firmly rejected by the EC Commission and the Economic and Social Committee and no attempt was made to change the position when the new directive was adopted in 2008. There is an interesting account of these debates in Stothers, Parallel Trade in Europe (2007), at pp. 347-354.