decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
What about mattress tags? | 226 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What about Costco v. Omega?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 12:20 AM EDT
> Wasn't [Costco] eventually decided against Omega for copyright misuse?

Yes and No. Trial court was for Costco.
Ninth Cct Appeal went to Omega on 9th Cct precedents that first sale
17 U.S.C. §109(a) provides no defense to infringement action brought
under Sections 106(3) and 602(a).
SCOTUS was divided so 9th Cct ruling stands.

Omega held US Copyright for the watches made overseas.
Omega's case was that Costco was importing for sale and distribution,
so they infringed 106(3), and because the "first" sale
took place outside the US 109 did not apply.
Maybe the 9th arrived via Quality King at
> our general rule that § 109(a) refers "only to copies
> legally made . . . in the United States,"

AFAIK Kirtsaeng has not been accused under 106(3) with unauthorized
distribution to the public by sale. His defence rested on 109(a) first sale.
Wiley were denied access to his Paypal records relating to sales of
books from other publishers, and Kirtsaeng claimed not to have
significant net worth [since he spent much of the proceeds from
$1.2M sales on his education costs].

Danger 1. This is 2nd Cct and they have sided with the 9th in
deciding 109(a) applies only to copies made in the US

Danger 2. They both rely on Quality King which is an inverse case:
the copies were made in the US by the copyright holder, exported,
then re-imported by the infringer for resale. This seems to me to be
a very shaky precedent for both Costco and Kirtsaeng, but then IANAL.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What about mattress tags?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 12:36 AM EDT
I remember many years ago being puzzled by the inscription
on the outside back cover of Penguin paperbacks
"This book is not to be sold in the United States or Canada"

At first I had sympathy for the poor benighted souls,
then I learned about mattress tags...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )