Court case to decide if you're allowed to resell ANYTHING with parts made overseas
41 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rastadogg5;38203650]Wait are you saying you agree with this?
Lemme, put this another way. Say you need some extra cash, you have quite a few things laying around that you could throw on ebay, maybe make a couple hundred dollars. BUT WAIT ONE SCREW WAS MADE IN CHINA, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
(If I misinterpreted your post please ignore this)
[editline]26th October 2012[/editline]
What about American cars that use various parts imported from other countries? Like engines, suspension, tyres, etc.
Which I'm pretty sure is pretty much every single one ever.
[editline]26th October 2012[/editline]
If this passes and it goes as far as not allowing anything with any single part made outside the country to be resold, you'd literally never be able to buy anything used.[/QUOTE]
Except this doesn't cover parts but products. That's essentially the important thing. The article is written really badly as it assumes that the parts to be defining for the first sale doctrine. But the product as a whole is the defining area with the exception of certain specialised subsets of products (nonphysical IP like software, books etc)
The article is written in such a way that a single chinese screw somewhere would be able to bar you from a resale. The truth is that it doesn't matter if the entire thing was manufactured in china, shipped to the US and then sold there as long as the first sale happened in the US.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;38203699]Except this doesn't cover parts but products. That's essentially the important thing. The article is written really badly as it assumes that the parts to be defining for the first sale doctrine. But the product as a whole is the defining area with the exception of certain specialised subsets of products (nonphysical IP like software, books etc)[/QUOTE]
Oh, that makes a bit more sense. Even so, pawnshops and ebay would be pretty well fucked.
[QUOTE=Rastadogg5;38203706]Oh, that makes a bit more sense. Even so, pawnshops and ebay would be pretty well fucked.[/QUOTE]
Not really. As I've said before these things are generally only applicable if you try to make a commercial profit out of this importing and sidestepping the original IP holder.
A pawn shop or ebay specialises in the resale of a wide variety of used products which are bought by physical persons locally and then resold further on the basis of the first sale doctrine.
They don't even get close to legislation. On top of that they are only a marketplace in a sense, not someone commiting the deed.
Basically the court case is such.
Bookmaker a) exists in two markets - US and (Let's say Vietnam) and they sell the same product at a big price difference because both marketplaces are different
Private person b) sees this difference and begins an import of the vietnamese sold product and reselling it in the US
A) notices this and goes to court
B) defends with first sale doctrine
Courts then have to decide whether a products first sale doctrine is applicable for a product sold outside of the US as well and then Gray imported. (A legal product not meant for the marketplace it's currently being resold in) and at what level of damage it is not applicable.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;38203734]Not really. As I've said before these things are generally only applicable if you try to make a commercial profit out of this importing and sidestepping the original IP holder.
A pawn shop or ebay specialises in the resale of a wide variety of used products which are bought by physical persons locally and then resold further on the basis of the first sale doctrine.
They don't even get close to legislation. On top of that they are only a marketplace in a sense, not someone commiting the deed.[/QUOTE]
So basically, the article is massively misleading?
Because, that would make so much more sense.
[QUOTE=Rastadogg5;38203766]So basically, the article is massively misleading?
Because, that would make so much more sense.[/QUOTE]
I think the person who wrote the article horribly misunderstood the case. So yes I believe it is incredibly misleading. And considering how common that is with articles dealing with court cases written by laymen I am not surprised.
Better sell everything while you can.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;38203208]This kind of shit is why I'm a Socialist, for fuck's sake.[/QUOTE]
this is definitely not a capitalist idea
The question throughout this though, is who the hell would enforce it? It's not like they'd shut down Ebay or Craigslist or Amazon, and I guarantee they'll all fight it like hell with tooth and nail against it, they are massive companies (at least Ebay and Amazon). Right?..
[editline]27th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38204277]this is definitely not a capitalist idea[/QUOTE]
It's not exactly socialist, either. It's driven by pure greed, and the need to try and get money for everything private companies have sold, even past the point of sale.
Having a quick look, there's already previous judgements on this area of law, and it seems to be regarding the parallel importation of products available locally, but done so without the permission of the IP owner.
The case in question, Kirtsaeng started importing text books which could be purchased domestically, at substantially cheaper prices from Thailand, and then started selling them on eBay, of course doing this without the permission of John Wiley & Sons, the copyright holder of the books. It doing this, Kirtsaeng made some money.
The Supreme Court is to decide if this first sales doctrine would apply in this situation (in that: can a person resell goods purchased from overseas without the express permission of the IP owner). Previous law (from very very quick reading) seems to suggest the the first sales doctrine does not apply to such cases.
If it does affirm the previous decision, I don't understand how it would affect a person's capacity to resell an iPad if they purchased it in the US.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;38203781]I think the person who wrote the article horribly misunderstood the case. So yes I believe it is incredibly misleading. And considering how common that is with articles dealing with court cases written by laymen I am not surprised.[/QUOTE]
The article is actually written by a lawyer, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was being misleading on purpose.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;38205083]The article is actually written by a lawyer, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was being misleading on purpose.[/QUOTE]
It just sounds like the person hasn't done enough reading.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.