SCOTUS Deadlocks on First-Sale Doctrine Case

December 13, 2010 -

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a split decision on Costco v. Omega, a case dealing with first sale doctrine. The court divided 4-4. The case had to do with watches bought overseas and sold at Costco discounts in the United States. The split denies a change in a lower court decision upholding the rights of the Swiss watch manufacturer, Omega.

According to Scotus blog, a different outcome might have been possible if the newest justice, Justice Elena Kagan, didn't recuse herself from the case. Kagan has recused herself from about half of the cases being heard during this term.

Costco argued in its appeal that the Ninth Circuit decision allows copyright owners who make products outside the U.S. to gain added legal weapons against those who buy goods overseas.

More from SCOTUS Blog:

At issue is the so-called “first sale doctrine.” Federal law provides that, if a copy of a protected work is made or purchased legally, that copy can be sold without the consent of the owner of the copyright. Once the owner of a protected work has sold a copy of it to someone else, that other person may sell it without permission of the owner of the copyright.

Under other provisions of copyright law, importing a copy of a protected work amounts to an infringement of the copyright if the copy was made abroad and brought back into the U.S. without permission. The first-sale doctrine is an exception to that provision. The Ninth Circuit, however, ruled that the doctrine applies only to copies made legally and sold inside the U.S.

Some good examples of how first-sale doctrine applies to software and DVDs can be found here.


Comments

Re: SCOTUS Deadlocks on First-Sale Doctrine Case

I am not quite clear... how does copyright fit into this case since we are dealing with the sale of tangible goods?

Re: SCOTUS Deadlocks on First-Sale Doctrine Case

Somehow Omega was able to convince some judges that Company logos are covered under copyright and not trademark. Since it was the logo that was being distributed without the permission of the copyright owner, selling the product was illegal.

I think it is a stupid ruling and a stupid case. The logo should not be allowed to have copyright protection and rather fall under trademark law which would have allowed for this sale as the logo is attached to a licensed good.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: SCOTUS Deadlocks on First-Sale Doctrine Case

Odd indeed.  If they were digital watches, I suppose you could claim copyright on the firmware, but as far as I know they were analog -- that's what precision Swiss watches are known for.

Re: SCOTUS Deadlocks on First-Sale Doctrine Case

Ah!

Thanks for the explination.

Re: SCOTUS Deadlocks on First-Sale Doctrine Case

Breakdown?

Re: SCOTUS Deadlocks on First-Sale Doctrine Case

Irritating, but according to the linked article it didn't set a national precedent.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Poll: Is it censorship when a private retailer decides not to sell a particular video game?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameI think Ip needs to go watch some Team four star and laugh a bit, he seems to serious at times. I think he'd get a kick outta Hellsing ultimate abridged.05/30/2015 - 5:36pm
DocMelonheadPretty much05/30/2015 - 5:33pm
InfophileSo... he's sea-lioning? http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning05/30/2015 - 5:29pm
Goth_SkunkAnd those are examples just targeting me specifically. Nevermind targeting others like Mattsworkname or DocMelonhead or WonderKarp.05/30/2015 - 5:28pm
DocMelonheadWhich is why it's fitting to call him/her a troll; bait the GG sympathizer and attack them through guilt of supporting a hate movement05/30/2015 - 5:28pm
Goth_Skunk1. http://ow.ly/NEH62 | 2. http://ow.ly/NEHfW | 3. http://ow.ly/NEHPN | 4. http://ow.ly/NEHWM | 5. http://ow.ly/NEIcR05/30/2015 - 5:27pm
MattsworknameThe being said, Ip loves to demand you answer specific claims and when you do, he then immedately shifts to another tactic rather then address your repsonses05/30/2015 - 5:23pm
MattsworknameThe problem is that gamergate has no organization or leaders so no one can really claim direct libel unless they got directly named and attacked. The double edged sword of internet activism at work.05/30/2015 - 5:22pm
DocMelonhead@InfoPhile true, but it seems like Iron Patriot been shoving his/her opinion down the the throats of GG sympathizer.05/30/2015 - 5:19pm
InfophilePlus, it discusses a movement, not a person. Libel usually only applies to people in the US (though some countries, like the UK, will hear libel cases against organizations)05/30/2015 - 5:16pm
DocMelonheadBut don't have Iron Patriot get to you Goth_Skunk. He/she just wanted GamerGater to GTHO of GamePolitics and back into their basement.05/30/2015 - 5:16pm
InfophileTo be libel, it has to be a statement of fact, not a matter of opinion. That's easily construable as an opinion, as it reflects on the perceived goals of a movement05/30/2015 - 5:15pm
DocMelonheadI think that GamerGate is nothing but a Failed attempt to kick Women out of Gaming is libel enough.05/30/2015 - 5:13pm
Mattsworknamethat out in people.05/30/2015 - 5:13pm
MattsworknameWhile IM no fan of Ip, and think he acts exceddingly dicksh most of the time, I dont know if its gone far enough to be ,abusive, Uncivil yes, of that I have not doubt, but at the same time, there have been moments when Im also uncivil to ip. he brings05/30/2015 - 5:13pm
InfophileGoth_Skunk: Could you point to an example of libel? That is, a statement that's false, defamatory, and made in either the knowledge it's false or with reckless disregard for the truth (that's the definition in US law, at least)05/30/2015 - 5:12pm
Andrew EisenGP staff will take another look.05/30/2015 - 5:11pm
DocMelonheadBecause right now it seems that Iron Patriot doesn't want GG supporters to go on GamerPolitics and spreads lies about the Movement.05/30/2015 - 5:11pm
DocMelonheadPersonally, I suggest that we invite other GamerGaters to participate in the Comment section, and see were we go from here.05/30/2015 - 5:10pm
DocMelonheadHeck, they even allowed us to slander Anita Sarkeesian.05/30/2015 - 5:09pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician