Business Law - Copyright
Citation
Kirtsaeng DBA Bluechristine99 v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Docket No. 11-697) 568 U.S. __ (2013).
The Respondent, John Wiley & Sons (“Wiley”), brought a claim against Petitioner, Supap Kirtsaeng d/b/a Bluechristine99 (“Kirtsaeng”), for violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Sections 101-810.
Facts
Kirtsaeng began as a legal case in U.S. District Court, New York, (2010) and culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) ruling, March 13, 2013. Both the District Court and the 2nd District Federal appellate rulings favored Wiley which caused Kirtsaeng to seek cert which was granted April, 2012 followed by oral arguments in October, 2012.
Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai college student bought, imported to the United States, and resold textbooks inscribed with language warning that this intellectual property (“I.P.”) could not be exported. These books, originally published and sold in Asia for less money than charged purchasers in the U.S.A., by various publishers, were then resold by Kirtsaeng’s business, Bluechristine99, through sales’ vehicles such as the internet resale function of eBay.com. It was a common practice for publishers to manufacture cheaper books offshore and to sell these products in international markets at a lower price point than sales to the U.S. domestic market.
Wiley objected to Kirtsaeng’s resale on the basis that they did not license such activity and believed it to be unlawful.
Further, it was also common for 3rd parties to original sales by manufacturers and purchasers to use, loan and resell such manufactured items. Examples of this include lending libraries (public, academic, and professional), Goodwill and Salvation Army resale businesses, and local private garage sales all of whom are resellers whose business activities are impacted by legal theories in Kirtsaeng.
Issues & Arguments
Wiley held to the “exclusive rights” legal theory purported in U.S. copyright law which affords “exclusive rights” to manufacturers “to
Kirtsaeng DBA Bluechristine99 v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Docket No. 11-697) 568 U.S. __ (2013).
The Respondent, John Wiley & Sons (“Wiley”), brought a claim against Petitioner, Supap Kirtsaeng d/b/a Bluechristine99 (“Kirtsaeng”), for violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Sections 101-810.
Facts
Kirtsaeng began as a legal case in U.S. District Court, New York, (2010) and culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) ruling, March 13, 2013. Both the District Court and the 2nd District Federal appellate rulings favored Wiley which caused Kirtsaeng to seek cert which was granted April, 2012 followed by oral arguments in October, 2012.
Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai college student bought, imported to the United States, and resold textbooks inscribed with language warning that this intellectual property (“I.P.”) could not be exported. These books, originally published and sold in Asia for less money than charged purchasers in the U.S.A., by various publishers, were then resold by Kirtsaeng’s business, Bluechristine99, through sales’ vehicles such as the internet resale function of eBay.com. It was a common practice for publishers to manufacture cheaper books offshore and to sell these products in international markets at a lower price point than sales to the U.S. domestic market.
Wiley objected to Kirtsaeng’s resale on the basis that they did not license such activity and believed it to be unlawful.
Further, it was also common for 3rd parties to original sales by manufacturers and purchasers to use, loan and resell such manufactured items. Examples of this include lending libraries (public, academic, and professional), Goodwill and Salvation Army resale businesses, and local private garage sales all of whom are resellers whose business activities are impacted by legal theories in Kirtsaeng.
Issues & Arguments
Wiley held to the “exclusive rights” legal theory purported in U.S. copyright law which affords “exclusive rights” to manufacturers “to