|
From: | Hyman Rosen |
Subject: | Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourtof Appeals |
Date: | Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:01:55 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 |
On 12/21/2010 11:55 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
In sum, the legislative history of Section 109(a) reveals that the phrase "lawfully made under this title" clarifies what constitutes a "first sale" for purposes of the first sale doctrine"
This is false, at least as held by the Ninth Circuit and upheld by the Supreme Court; "lawfully made under this title" means exactly that, a copy made as permitted by this law. Omega vs. Costco resulted in first sale not applying to imported items because they were made in a foreign country, and thus not "made under this title". You may continue to believe that this change is immaterial to the outcome of Wells, but I already know what your opinion is worth.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |