Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
The Courts

Supreme Court To Consider First Sale of Imports 259

Posted by kdawson
from the copyright-because-i-say-so dept.
Animaether passes along a legal tale that "doesn't involve the kind of cutting-edge issues that copyright lawyers usually grapple with in the digital age [and] sounds like the kind of lawsuit that should have been resolved 200 years ago," yet still "is very much a product of the Internet-driven global economy." "Can copyright owners assert rights over imported goods that have already been sold once? That is the issue before the Supreme Court in Costco Wholesale Corp v. Omega, S.A. (backstory here). What's at stake is the ability of resellers to offer legitimate, non-pirated versions of copyrighted goods, manufactured in foreign nations, to US consumers at prices that undercut those charged by the copyright holders."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court To Consider First Sale of Imports

Comments Filter:
  • I thought I had a decent understanding of the three legal spheres grouped under "Intellectual Property": patents, copyright and trademarks. But I don't understand why copyright is involved in this specific case. Wouldn't Omega's logo stamped on products be something protected as a trademark, not as a copyrighted work?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 27 2010, @04:39PM (#32004448)

    The planet needs a global, multinational currency. That will stop the problems about different prices for each country, problems about manufacturing costs and problems about the purchasing power of everyone. No longer will manufacturing things in China or offering customer support from India be profitable. In return, people will once again have money to spend and the money will flow more freely (both figuratively and literally).

  • by tomkost (944194) on Tuesday April 27 2010, @04:41PM (#32004462)
    Yes, it is a foregone conclusion, but not in the way you probably are thinking. You see, the rights of corporations must be protected at all costs. They can not be restricted by silly concepts like the sovereignty of nations, fair use, personal property rights, or any other fundamental concept of our legal systems. Don't worry, the Supreme Court will help them achieve their profits at any cost. I sure hope I'm wrong, but let's watch and see.
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday April 27 2010, @04:44PM (#32004510) Journal
    It's even nastier than that, in some cases, because some "real and tangible" property is now complex enough to enforce(against all but extremely sophisticated individuals) its own rules about use.

    CSS is pitifully weak; but it was perhaps the first demonstration of this concept that gained huge market traction. Thanks to CSS licensing requirements, adding technologically enforced region coding became trivial.

    As the cost of computing power continues to fall, and the number of devices that have embedded firmware and/or unique serial numbers continues to increase, there is virtually no area of "real property" over which the DMCA and copyright law will not eventually exert de facto control.
  • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Tuesday April 27 2010, @04:49PM (#32004546)
    If I understand the backstory article correctly, Omega registered a copyright on its logo in order to fall under this exception to the First Sale Doctrine. I believe Costco made a mistake in not challenging the copyright. The Omega logo does not appear to me to be something that is copyrightable. I don't know if they can change their tactics at this point, but if they can, they should. The Omega logo is not distinct from hundreds of other expressions of Omega that have been used for years. When I did a search of "Omega logo" I found a computer company that uses almost exactly the same logo except with the word "Systems" added. Additionally I saw several other similar logos that I did not bother to follow to see what company they were for (but it wasn'tthe watch company).
  • Law and Precedents (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zero_out (1705074) on Tuesday April 27 2010, @04:50PM (#32004556)
    I read the article, and I have to say that I am still baffled by how much US law relies on precedents. Judges are fallible humans. Even after several rounds of appeals, erroneous judgements happen. Prior to emancipation, the US Supreme Court issued rulings in favor of owning slaves. If the court followed precedent, then it should have ruled against Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. Ruling on precedent is the same as answering the question "why do we do this?" by saying "because we always have." Why does so much of US law rest on precedent, when it's obvious that past rulings are sometimes (often) flawed? Please, don't say "because we always have."
  • by NewWorldDan (899800) on Tuesday April 27 2010, @04:53PM (#32004590) Homepage Journal
    The problem is that Congress did a lousy job of writing section 602 of the copyright code. It's clear to me that the intent of the law is that this should apply to goods manufactured abroad without the consent of the copyright holder. It calls it a violation of the copyright holder's right to produce and distribute something. Except, of course, that the copyright holder has already exercised that right.

    Interestingly enough, if I read it correctly, this doesn't apply to people importing things for their own personal use. So downloading music from a jurisdiction that doesn't recognize US copyrights is completely legit, as long as you don't share it with anyone. :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 27 2010, @05:11PM (#32004800)

    By relying on precedents, it is easier to tell what the law is. You don't have to worry about a future court interpreting the same law a different way.

    If you want to change the law, you can still do it through Congress. Even the Constitution can be amended if you don't like how the courts have interpreted it.

  • by Obfuscant (592200) on Tuesday April 27 2010, @05:28PM (#32004936)
    Ruling on precedent is the same as answering the question "why do we do this?" by saying "because we always have."

    No, it's the same as saying "because the supreme court decided that way in a similar situation, and it's a real waste of time to try to reverse the supreme court with our own fanciful rulings". That doesn't seem to stop the Ninth Circuit, however.

    It's also a way of adding inertia to the system, which in the long run is a good thing. It's very hard doing anything under a system that flip-flops every time a judge farts. Or in a country where three regions (circuits) operate under courts that rule one way and the rest under different rulings.

    That's also why the inertia of having a bicameral legislature is worth the effort.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 27 2010, @05:34PM (#32005004)
    The GP is actually right. Pharmaceutical price controls in other countries are subsidized by higher prices in the US. If (e.g.) Canadian price controls were to be applied globally, the potential returns for R&D of new drugs would drop dramatically, to the point that many drugs currently in development would be abandoned and much potential new research would never get off the ground.

    This is the inconvenient truth that gets lost in the health care debate - one of the reasons that modern health care is so expensive is that all the cheap/easy medical advances are generations behind us. Modern advances are necessarily far more difficult and expensive to develop, and those costs must be borne by somebody if the research is to continue. At the same time, progressive medical advances have made it possible to add years to the end of many people's lives, and have made many previously fatal conditions survivable. Unfortunately, the older a person becomes, the more medical care he needs, and the more likely he is to develop a condition that is now survivable, but only at great expense.

    This is why any true health reform must draw a balance between providing treatment and managing costs. At some point, 87 year-old John Smith is going to have to accept that society cannot afford to spend $5 million on cancer treatment to extend his life by another 6 months. Try selling that to the voters, though.
  • Re:"Grey Market" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by phorm (591458) on Tuesday April 27 2010, @05:36PM (#32005034) Homepage Journal

    Thankfully, for most products this doesn't happen

    It does for a lot of laptops. That's why many companies seem to have - for example - a model that ends in -US or CA. The major model number on the top may say DX8200, but the stamp on the bottom is more specifically a DX8243CA...

  • by HTH NE1 (675604) on Tuesday April 27 2010, @05:53PM (#32005220)

    Imagine: Omega watches which sync up with the radio signal from an atomic clock, but refuse to configure themselves for any timezones other than those for which it was authorized for sale.

    Of course, they'd lose the lucrative international traveler market. Or they'll have temporary time zone support, but if you stay too long in a foreign timezone it will reset or disable itself.

    And then comes the question: what if I, as an (American) international traveler, buy one of their manufactured-in-Switzerland watches cheaply in an authorized country, travel back to the US, and then decide I don't like it (or need the money) and want to sell the watch on eBay? Apparently they want to bar me from selling the watch because it wasn't authorized for sale in the US.

    Will they have their goons patrolling the US looking for people wearing imported watches and harass them to show their receipts showing they personally purchased the watch overseas or give up who sold them the watch under threat of prosecution? "Product's papers, please?"

  • by SydShamino (547793) on Tuesday April 27 2010, @06:16PM (#32005438)

    I disagree with your analysis. You claim that they tend towards being somewhat decentralized. On the contrary, I think they start out as decentralized "entrepreneurships" and then tend towards becoming centralized "organized crime".

    We call these centralized units "the Mob" or "cartels" or something.

    Without firsthand knowledge, I'd bet that Somalia's pirate business has consolidated in this fashion in the last few years as well. It's highly unlikely that each pirate vessel and crew act on their own without higher controlling authority.

  • by FrigBot (1459361) * on Tuesday April 27 2010, @06:45PM (#32005688)

    And by coming up with new "diseases" to treat. Like Restless Legs Syndrome. What the fuck is that? Yes sometimes my legs feels restless. BUT YOU CAN CURE IT BY GETTING SOME FUCKING EXERCISE! People just want to be super lazy and just sit around on the couch, taking whatever drug they need out of the toolbox to "cure" whatever ails them at that moment. I have an uncle like that. What do you got? Mildly constipated? Try one of the 3 treatments he has in his medicine cabinet for that. Or maybe it's a slight headache? Try this, or this, or this...

    Meanwhile, the drug companies are focussing on long-term diseases, like depression, because they can then hook you on their drug for life. This is why there are few new anti-biotics released, according to a doctor friend I have.

  • by WillDraven (760005) on Tuesday April 27 2010, @07:56PM (#32006448) Homepage

    I just got this horrific image of a dystopian future in which you have to carry on your person licenses for every piece of hardware, software, content, fashion accessory, haircut, tattoo, etc. that you have on your person. Don't have your license? Pay the fine or go to jail. The scariest thing about that is I can see it coming true.

    I think I need to go lie down...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 27 2010, @08:01PM (#32006508)

    "Free market" is an oxymoron in the first place (when taken to the logical extreme of "totally unregulated", anyways).

    Except that extreme is not logical given an understanding of the free market as described by Adam Smith.

    Without property rights, and contract enforcement, and currency, the forces of supply and demand still exist but can't develop into anything like the byzantine sophistication of Wall Street.

    Those things are fundamental pre-conditions of a free market as described by Smith. Your argument against the free market is a straw man, because you are arguing against a construct of your own imagination ("free market" as totally unregulated without even property rights or contract enforcement) when no free market economist has ever actually proposed such a thing.

  • by Darinbob (1142669) on Tuesday April 27 2010, @08:09PM (#32006614)
    That's why the "free market" as it is often described is a myth, akin to the point mass used when teaching physics. It's a nice theoretical concept, but it doesn't reflect reality very well.

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Working...