It means that a legal purchaser of a copyright-protected
item may dispose of that property anyway he/she sees fit. The court ruled
in favor
of an immigrant scientist from Thailand., Supap Kirtsaeng, imported
textbooks that were lawfully printed overseas by a U.S. publisher. He then sold
those printed textbooks on eBay.
The Supreme Court explained in it ruling that products are
nowadays easily bought and sold outside of the US. Customers therefore enjoy a
wider choice as well as lower prices for items that companies, libraries, used
bookstores and retailers can import to the US, without the need to verify if
any there is any US IP for further sale. To quote the Supreme Court: “A
geographical interpretation would subject many, if not all, of them to the
disruptive impact of the threat of infringement suits.”
This decision preserves the rights that the first-sale
doctrine protects manufacturers, retailers, libraries, consumers, and the public
at large.
The Supreme Court’s decision could potentially also impact digital
content as well as is
pharmaceuticals. As a result, people could opt for buying drugs abroad
where prices are lower.
The Kirtsaeng case shows us legal eagles that copyright
monopoly must be limited to its constitutional purpose. As the Supreme Court
stated: “American law … has generally thought that competition, including freedom
to resell, can work to the advantage of the consumer”.
