Robert Pogson

“The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion issued Tuesday, struck down a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling that could have outlawed the resale of large numbers of products made outside the U.S., including books, CDs, DVDs and software.”
see Supreme Court reaffirms resale of copyright works.

While this may be important for copyrighted works installed on dead trees, imagine what it will do for the lowly personal computer and its bundled OS…

M$ makes $billions every quarter selling licences to its OS to OEMs most of which are in Asia. To combat illegal copying, M$ has for the last five years sold copies/licences for just a few dollars. If those copies can now be exported legally to USA/Europe there is huge potential for blood-loss. Will M$ raise the prices in Asia or will it lower the prices elsewhere? Either is important since China is now the biggest market for legacy PCs in the world having supplanted USA recently.

This could be the last straw for M$’s monopoly on retail shelf-spaces. If the price of the OS falls to GNU/Linux-like prices they can’t still suggest the software is better because it costs more… I never did like that argument. It’s silly when you look at it. But we hear it on this blog occasionally even after the departure of many trolls.

If the price of the OS rises dramatically in Asia and impoverished countries, M$ will lose share to GNU/Linux or illegal copying will rise sharply. China really has attempted to get governments and businesses to buy licences for M$’s OS. Faced with a huge increase in price, what will businesses do? I will bet many will do the right thing and install GNU/Linux or better, OEMs will supply it pre-installed.

Will software patents be scuttled next? 2013 is a wonderful year.

For more information, try SCOTUSblog article on the opinion and an opinion-opinion…

Here’s a piece of the opinion of the court:
“Respondent, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., an academic textbook publisher, often assigns to its wholly owned foreign subsidiary (Wiley Asia) rights to publish, print, and sell foreign editions of Wiley’s English language textbooks abroad. Wiley Asia’s books state that they are not to be taken (without permission) into the United States.
When petitioner Kirtsaeng moved from Thailand to the United States to study mathematics, he asked friends and family to buy foreign edition English-language textbooks in Thai book shops, where they sold at low prices, and to mail them to him in the United States. He then sold the books, reimbursed his family and friends, and kept the profit.
Wiley filed suit, claiming that Kirtsaeng’s unauthorized importation and resale of its books was an infringement of Wiley’s §106(3)
…
Respondent, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., an academic textbook publisher, often assigns to its wholly owned foreign subsidiary (Wiley Asia) rights to publish, print, and sell foreign editions of Wiley’s English language textbooks abroad. Wiley Asia’s books state that they are not to be taken (without permission) into the United States.
When petitioner Kirtsaeng moved from Thailand to the United States to study mathematics, he asked friends and family to buy foreign edition English-language textbooks in Thai book shops, where they sold
at low prices, and to mail them to him in the United States. He then sold the books, reimbursed his family and friends, and kept the profit.
Wiley filed suit, claiming that Kirtsaeng’s unauthorized importation and resale of its books was an infringement of Wiley’s §106(3) exclusive right to distribute and §602’s import prohibition. Kirtsaeng replied that because his books were “lawfully made” and acquired legitimately, §109(a)’s “first sale” doctrine permitted importation and resale without Wiley’s further permission. The District Court held that Kirtsaeng could not assert this defense because the doctrine does not apply to goods manufactured abroad. The jury then found that Kirtsaeng had willfully infringed Wiley’s American copyrights and assessed damages. The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that §109(a)’s “lawfully made under this title” language indicated that the “first sale” doctrine does not apply to copies of American copyrighted works manufactured abroad.
Held: The “first sale” doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.”

Note: This is the first article I’ve written after rediscovering “rawdog” feed-reader and using it. It’s a mixed blessing. Some sites feed entire articles which I have to scroll though and others supply a link and a brief sample. I may have to change feeds a bit but rawdog can do the job for me.