UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (10) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: notehound Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 465270  
Subject: Nasty little Supreme Court Case Date: 10/10/2012 4:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 34
A nasty little case on the Supreme Court's Fall calendar could restrict Americans' ability to sell everything from books printed outside the US to their ability to sell any used car that contained foreign-manufactured components.

Just imagine how a Supreme Court decision upholding the lower court's ruling could destroy valuations of every sort of asset from artwork to jewelry to cell phones to cars.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-o...

Under the [first sale] doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale...

...if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright 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.

“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups...”

Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale...

In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that anything that was manufactured overseas is not subject to the first-sale principle. Only American-made products or “copies manufactured domestically” were.

“That’s a non-free-market capitalistic idea for something that’s pretty fundamental to our modern economy,” Ammori commented.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the case on Oct. 29.

Both Ammori and Band worry that a decision in favor of the lower court would lead to some strange, even absurd consequences. For example, it could become an incentive for manufacturers to have everything produced overseas because they would be able to control every resale.

It could also become a weighty issue for auto trade-ins and resales, considering about 40% of most U.S.-made cars carry technology and parts that were made overseas...


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-o...

It sounds like a crazy situation that could destroy every resale market from EBay to CarMax to the neighborhood garage sale.


:-o
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: matson15 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 405672 of 465270
Subject: Re: Nasty little Supreme Court Case Date: 10/10/2012 10:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Great idea for jobs creation!

Just think of how many J.P-L.F. (Just Plain-Looking Folks) will have to be hired to monitor garage sales, and to monitor the black market.

But wait-a-minit ---- we be needing smaller guv. Cause there’s no money for salaries.

Oi vey. I believe I read somewhere that G.W.B. had purchased land in Paraguay. Wonder if they got an enlightened Supreme Court??

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 405679 of 465270
Subject: Re: Nasty little Supreme Court Case Date: 10/10/2012 11:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Judge Roberts is the wild card. I know he is this golden boy from Harvard with the best of conservative thinking.

He is way over his head intellectually.

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 405693 of 465270
Subject: Re: Nasty little Supreme Court Case Date: 10/10/2012 1:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Common sense dictates that such a ruling would be nearly impossible to enforce. It might make sense to say the rule applies going forward on new purchases, and then it would only seem fair if the buyer was made demonstrably aware of the restriction. But to try to apply such a rule to existing property would be like trying to write enforcement policies to ban squirrels from climbing trees.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: notehound Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 405694 of 465270
Subject: Re: Nasty little Supreme Court Case Date: 10/10/2012 1:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But to try to apply such a rule to existing property would be like trying to write enforcement policies to ban squirrels from climbing trees.

They would just cut down the trees (EBay, Sotheby's Christies, etc. - organized and commercialized markets and swap meets - real and virtual).

It would certainly limit the ability to fetch a premium for toys and certain collectibles (porcelain, watches, artwork, musical instruments, etc.).

;-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: steve203 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 405695 of 465270
Subject: Re: Nasty little Supreme Court Case Date: 10/10/2012 1:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Common sense dictates that such a ruling would be nearly impossible to enforce.

In the preceeding thread on this topic, it was suggested that sales of buildings and autos would be easy, because those transactions are registered with the government, so the government would be charged with the job of collecting the royalty.

For everything else, as you suggest, policing would be impossible, so the secondary market would be outlawed for anything containing IP.

But to try to apply such a rule to existing property

The Constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws, but then, the Constitution also requires property siezed by eminent doman be for "public use", and the SCOTUS has already overridden that constraint in favor of private profit. The court might "compromise" and hold that you don't owe royalties on the used stuff you already bought, but require payment of royalties if you sell it.

Steve

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jerryab Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 405700 of 465270
Subject: Re: Nasty little Supreme Court Case Date: 10/10/2012 2:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It sounds like a crazy situation that could destroy every resale market from EBay to CarMax to the neighborhood garage sale.

Millions of homes have various items "built in" that were "Made in China".

The "China resale tax" (especially on a house) will the US economy.

Doubtful it is legal in the US because such limitations have to be made known to the buyer--and what seller told the original buyer they could NOT resell their house/car/boat/RV or any other big-ticket item? This will hit the original sellers hard, not current owners.

New cars sell for $3k or so--otherwise, who buys one if you do NOT expect to keep it until it dies? Leases work--maybe. LOL !!! Everybody has their own "company" for every item they own. You don't sell the item--you sell the company that owns the item (problem solved).

Fee per use: $10 per item sold (payable by the buyer and seller--they decide between them who pays how much).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShouldKnowBetter Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 405718 of 465270
Subject: Re: Nasty little Supreme Court Case Date: 10/10/2012 5:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think it is more directed at digital sales than paper printed versions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rinjr715 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 405753 of 465270
Subject: Re: Nasty little Supreme Court Case Date: 10/11/2012 12:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I don't think the Supremes are stupid enough to uphold this. And it's not enforceable if they do, because no governmental unit at any level in this country can afford the extra money it would cost to enforce it. My money's on the Supremes telling the lower court to take its ruling and shove it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: steve203 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 405761 of 465270
Subject: Re: Nasty little Supreme Court Case Date: 10/11/2012 1:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
...because no governmental unit at any level in this country can afford the extra money it would cost to enforce it.

Yup. Much easier to simply ban resale of anything containing IP.

My money's on the Supremes telling the lower court to take its ruling and shove it.

Based on the eminent domain and free speech cases, this seems to be a very pro corporate interests court, and IP royalties are near and dear to corporate hearts.

Steve

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (10) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement