SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    US Perspectives
    Overseas Manufacturing Creates Copyright Dilemma For US Supreme Court

    Published on 21 November 2012 @ 6:30 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons presents the United States Supreme Court with a stark and weighty choice. In the 29 October oral argument [pdf], Supap Kirtsaeng urged the court to uphold purchasers’ right to freely dispose of copyrighted works they have purchased, even when those works are made overseas. If this right is struck down, Kirtsaeng warned, museums in the US may be unable to borrow works of art created overseas, consumers may be unable to sell their used books and CDs, and many companies engaged in secondary markets, such as eBay and used car dealers, may be put out of business.

    Wiley, on the other hand, urged the Supreme Court to uphold the right of copyright owners to prevent unauthorised import of their works into the US. This right, according to Wiley, is needed if copyright owners are to sell different versions of their works at different prices in different countries. Such market segmentation is key for the book, television, movie and music industries, bringing them billions in revenue. And this segmentation is essential if content owners are to provide their works at prices that third world consumers can afford.

    In other words, the ramifications of the Kirtsaeng case could be huge. And they could reach far beyond the United States’ borders.

    Wiley, like many textbook publishers, sells different versions of its textbooks in different countries. The Asian version of its textbooks use lower quality paper and covers than the US version. However, the text is the same and the price is far less.

    Kirtsaeng helped pay for his university education (and made a tidy profit, too) by bringing Asian versions of Wiley textbooks into the US and reselling them to students seeking to save some money. He was subsequently sued by Wiley, which alleged his activities infringed Wiley’s copyrights in the textbooks.

    This case turns on the interpretation of two provisions of the US Copyright Act. Section 602(a)(1) of the Act clearly allows copyright owners to engage in market segmentation by stopping unauthorised imports of their works. This provision states that the US copyright in a work is infringed when a copy of the work (acquired outside the US) is imported into the US without the copyright owner’s approval.

    Section 602, however, appears to conflict with the first sale doctrine, now codified in Section 109(a) of the Act. Section 109(a) states that the owner of a copy “lawfully made under” the Copyright Act can sell or dispose of that copy without the permission of the copyright owner. In other words, once a copyright owner authorises the initial sale of a copy of a work, the copyright owner loses the right to control further distribution of that copy. The copy’s owner can freely resell, lend or give away the copy, as can any subsequent recipient of the copy.

    The US Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that the right granted by §602(a)(1) is limited by §109(a). The court held in Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research International, Inc. that copies created in the US and sold by a copyright owner overseas are subject to the first sale doctrine. If those copies are resold and eventually reimported into the US, these grey market goods are noninfringing under §109(a) – in spite of §602.

    But there’s a significant difference between Quality King and Kirtsaeng. The former involved copies made in the US, while the latter involves copies made overseas. Are copies made overseas, with the permission of the US copyright owner, “lawfully made under” the US Copyright Act? If not, these copies are outside the protection of §109(a), and their import into the US is therefore infringing under §602(a)(1).

    Kirtsaeng has argued that the phrase “lawfully made under” the Copyright Act should be interpreted broadly; it should include copies created anywhere in the world, so long as those copies were made in a manner that satisfies the standards of US copyright law. Wiley has argued for a narrower interpretation, which would cover only copies created in the US pursuant to US copyright law.

    If the US Supreme Court adopts Kirtsaeng’s interpretation of §109(a), copyright owners could find themselves unable to stop grey market resales of their goods into the US. That would be a huge problem for content businesses. “They often create different versions of their goods for different markets, in different languages and with different interoperability standards,” said Hillel Parness, a partner in the New York law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi.

    And the US version is frequently significantly more expensive than the non-US versions. So if non-US versions could be imported and resold into the US, these cheaper, grey market goods would undercut sales of the higher priced versions and damage content owners’ profitability. Such grey market sales could also damage content owners’ reputations in the US, because the non-US goods are often of lower quality than the US goods, and the non-US goods may not interoperate properly in the US.

    Should content owners be unable to stop grey market resales into the US, they may take drastic action in order to protect their profits and reputation in the US, some experts warn. These businesses may raise the prices on their non-US goods, making them the same as the goods intended for the US market. This would remove the incentive to resell the non-US goods in the US, but it would hurt the content owners’ sales outside the US. This also would hurt many consumers in lower income countries. “People in those countries may no longer be able to afford the copyrighted goods,” said Matthew W. Siegal, a partner in the New York office of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan.

    On the other hand, if the US Supreme Court adopts Wiley’s interpretation of §109(a), all copies made outside the US would never be subject to the first sale doctrine in the US. As a result, everyone buying books, CDs, or DVDs manufactured outside the US could be liable for infringement if they attempted to resell, lend or give away the copies in the US. These consumers would not be protected by the first sale doctrine, even if the copyright owners authorised the import and sale of the copies in the US. This could limit consumer freedom and devastate the market for used books, video games, CDs, DVDs, movie posters, sheet music, and other copyrighted works. It could also prevent US museums from borrowing or lending copyrighted works of art created outside the US.

    And that’s just the beginning. Many items contain copyrighted elements, and if these items are made outside the US, their copyrighted elements would fall outside the first sale doctrine. As a result, purchasers in the US might be unable to dispose of these items without the consent of the copyright owner.

    Consider, for instance, cars manufactured outside the US. They typically contain copyrighted software. If those cars are imported into the US, the copyrighted software in the cars would not be covered by the first sale doctrine, so anyone attempting to resell one of these cars without permission of the copyright owner could be liable for infringement. This possibility seemed to trouble Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who expressed his concern during oral argument in Kirtsaeng.

    Businesses could also add copyrighted elements to their goods simply to control the distribution of their works in the US. Famous watchmaker Omega S.A. already did this. The Swiss firm placed a tiny copyrighted design on the underside of its luxury watches, where it would not be seen, then asserted unauthorised imports of these designs (and the attached watches) into the US market infringed Omega’s copyright. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed [PDF] with Omega. That 2008 ruling was affirmed in 2010 by the US Supreme Court, but because the justices split 4-4, the high court’s decision has no precedential value.

    The 2010 decision, however, may foretell how the justices will rule in Kirtsaeng, because both cases present the same legal issue – the interpretation of §§109(a) and 602(a)(1). “You would think the eight justices would decide as they did last time,” said James M. Burger, a partner in the Washington, DC office of Dow Lohnes.

    The ninth justice, Elena Kagan, recused herself from the Omega case because she had participated in the litigation during her stint as US Solicitor General. But Justice Kagan may wind up deciding Kirtsaeng. “I expect Justice Kagan will be the swing vote,” Siegal said.

    Steven Seidenberg is a freelance reporter and attorney who has been covering intellectual property developments in the US for more than 15 years. He is based in the greater New York City area and may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. After A Tough 2012, IP Owners In US Face An Uncertain 2013 | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] to restrict how they are used by purchasers (and subsequent repurchasers). This could produce dire consequences for many sectors of the US economy, including second-hand book sellers, used car dealers, and [...]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 66.249.69.148