Supreme Court to limit resale of foreign items in U.S.?

[Buzzetta]

There isn't a single American car being sold today that doesn't contain foreign manufactured parts.

 

Exactly the point...

 

It all comes down to the wording. Again, refer to the Kelo decision. Once the court ruled the way they did with the working that they did it was literally game on.

Once the court handed down its decision, in NY alone, the Yankees, Mets, Nets, Giants and Jets all wanted new stadiums and talks reignited regarding the Islanders leaving Uniondale or getting a new house for their own and a more thoroughly developed area.

 

The wording in the decision will be more important than you realize. If left open to interpretation you could very well see the end of many venues where items are resold. This is why eBay is VERY concerned. The wording in this decision basically hangs the company's existence in the balance.

[Ares]

This will play Havok with Ebay and Other Auction sites

[Buzzetta]

This will play Havok with Ebay and Other Auction sites

 

Again, depends on the wording of the decision.

[Ryan.]

a car does not give creation to a new car.

 

Say what? I believe it was in Cars 2 when the Owen Wilsonmobile gave that Lady Car the ol' rear axle and they produced a baby Fiat. Are you really going to tell me that didn't happen?

[shadroch]

This case if decided the right way could be a great deal for American manufactoring. Restricting the second hand market to American made goods only could bring on a new golden age of American industry.

Given the choice between buying an American made product which will have a resale value or a foreign item that will not have any second hand value, which woiuld you buy?

Foreign car makers would have to lease their cars if they want any market share.

 

 

From my limited reading of the case, it seems an American company was selling its products overseas cheaper than it sold them here. Someone picked up on that and bought them overseas and sold them here.

I'm not sure how that should effect Mrs Mainstreets ability to sell clothing, that her kids outgrew, on ebay.

[Ryan.]

This thread seems to be teetering awfully close to a debate between market economies versus command economies. And if one squints, that turns into a debate between socialism and democracy. Where are my points?

[IchigosSoul]

Would this also apply to used cars? Imagine the chaos it would cause if every used car dealership had to pay for a new code to enter into the car's computer chip, in order to sell it. People trying to sell their own car themselves would be outraged.

 

In the case you describe:

 

The auto industry would support this as it would increase the sale of new cars

 

The oil industry would not because while it would increase the sale of new cars I believe it would decrease the number of cars on the road and subsequently lead to less gas being used.

 

Not only that, but many cars use parts that are outsourced to different companies. Imagine, selling one used car could make you get the permission of 30 different overseas manufacturers.

 

I wonder then, would something like what's in the software world known as abandonware pop up? To where if a company no longer produces a product and offers it new, then it loses it's right to claim money from sales?

[ThreeSeas]

I don't see this happening. Your property is yours to sell. As long as you didn't manufacture those CD's and DVD's featuring someone else's content.

 

It is already allowed in certain circumstances.

 

From my understanding, (I will always say if I believe there is a chance that I could be wrong) an example would be that Monsanto has placed intellectual property rights on it's genetically modified seed so that any new seed born from the fruit or vegetables that it yields remains their property and cannot be resold or reused.

 

The courts have ruled that seed is exempt from the laws that govern a CD or a dining room set because seed yields more seed whereas a car does not give creation to a new car.

Yeah I've heard about this. I think it's ridiculous. Unless they can control pollination of those modified plants, they should have to allow farmers to grow whatever they can grow. It's not hard to engineer feminized seeds. If their engineered crop pollinates a farmers natural crop, that farmer is liable to pay fines to the makers of that seed. It's absolutely ridiculous. But I still don't see that effecting common people and their old Sony's. If it does I'd expect a revision soon after.

 

Years ago when my parents were alive, my dad farmed. Every year one of the crops he planted was soybeans. What dad would do is take a wagon load of his own beans and have them cleaned (weed seeds removed) and bagged at the elevator, then we would bring them home to use as seed for the next years crop. At the time my dad was getting $5 - $6 a bushel when selling his beans. But if he had to buy new seed from a seed producer, they would charge anywhere from $60 to $100 or so per bushel. I think a few seed companies were not getting enough repeat customers and having a patent on your seeds would insure repeats.

 

So flash forward to now with all of the patented seeds. I head of one farmer in the news that got caught replanting seeds that he grew himself and that he got into a lot of trouble, I just am not sure what happened to him or his farm.

 

I just hope this never happens to my garden seeds, but who knows which companies will now apply for patents on their own seed stock.

 

I too think it is not right.

 

 

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

I hear all staples are manufactured in Hong Kong. All of them.

 

No more re-selling your comics, unless you take the staples out first.

 

(Currently verifying the origins of paper and ink.)

[the blob]

This case if decided the right way could be a great deal for American manufactoring. Restricting the second hand market to American made goods only could bring on a new golden age of American industry.

Given the choice between buying an American made product which will have a resale value or a foreign item that will not have any second hand value, which woiuld you buy?

Foreign car makers would have to lease their cars if they want any market share.

 

 

From my limited reading of the case, it seems an American company was selling its products overseas cheaper than it sold them here. Someone picked up on that and bought them overseas and sold them here.

I'm not sure how that should effect Mrs Mainstreets ability to sell clothing, that her kids outgrew, on ebay.

 

i have not read it, but i do not believe that this is what the case is about. stuff manufactured abroad and imported here by the manufacturers/intellectual property owners is not at issue. what is at issue, let's say, is something licensed to be manufactured in korea to only be sold in the korean market, because the intellectual owner has a different license with an american manufacturer just to sell in the american market, and not allowing those "made for korea" items to be sold here. it has nothing to do with chinese-made clothing not being allowed to be sold secondhand here. it's about the ability of the licensee to restrict secondary sales outside of the places for which that item was licensed.

 

sooooo, the german version of spiderman, maybe the license restricts the sale to germany. can that secondhand copy be sold in the usa? maybe not. it has nothing to do with whether an audi manufactured in germany can be sold here.