Could be bad new depending on how it goes. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/costco-v-omega/?wpmp_switcher=desktop
Gamestop has some pretty good lawyers, as much as I dislike gamestop, their lawyers are important to keeping the sale of used games under first sale.
I'm not sure. Is this only revolving around the part that says imported goods? (but regardless of the content, books/magazines/cds/dvd/movies/...)? If so, then i'm pretty sure they'll side with previous president and say its ok. ----------------- The previous issue on first sale doctrine (that people where up in arms over) really involved software with serial keys which generally wasn't allowed by most companies in the first place (and most modern software has moved to key validation anyways).
Think of it like this. You live in the US and wanted to import the newest Gundam game but Bandai US has the right to this market and decided not to sell it here. If this case goes the wrong way Bandai, even though they have no intention of releasing it could complain to US Customs and have them seize any copies that come in through the grey market because they hold the rights to Gundam here. They could also force Ebay to block any listing from sellers not in the US. For a real world example just remember that this is essentially what Sony used in the UK to put the final nail in Lik-Sang's coffin.
Which part of the legal briefing covers that? I don't really see that and I would really like to read where that's covered. That's not a real world example at all. Lik-Sang killed them selves, not sony. Lik-sang has been under many legal issues for years and long before the whole psp fiasco. People need to stop blaming Sony for Lik-Sang's closing. If you're going down that route. A better example is Play-asia's refusal to ship sony products to Europe.
I keep getting an error when trying to download the briefs so I can't speak to what they say but from what I have read from other articles the case has to do with wither the first sales doctrine starts when the manufacturer first sells the product anywhere or if starts when they first sell it in the US. It might be billed as a case involving first doctrine but it also has extremely strong implications regarding parallel imports, gray market sales, trademarks, and copyrights. Here are some of the articles I've read on the case. Maybe they'll give you a better idea of how I'm reaching my conclusions. http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/04/19/costco-v-omega-tests-power-of-a-logo/ http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=34d1735d-43c8-4514-8303-299cb95d7190
I see where you're getting your view but I think it's being quick to jump the gun. While there are negative implications over this there are areas of argument that could void it in certain situations. The case at hand is that grey-market imports are undercutting Omega's own retail in the USA. This is the same stuff sony pulled in Europe, because at the time it was true. But in the current situation, it's not really the case in the USA as imports are generally more expensive then domestic releases (specially so given the strong yen and weakening US dollar). As well it's being argued over something that is made available by the parent company locally. If it where items not avalible for market locally I don't think it would bend in Omega's favor. So personally, I don't think it would hold up when applied to something like imported games. It obviously would have to be challenged from that angle but is doable. But that's just my opinion.
Some of what I'm saying could be a worst case scenario but I could easily see someone like Nintendo using it to block 3DS imports. It wouldn't matter if there was undercutting or not since that is where the copyright part comes in. There is also the real world aspect where even if SCOTUS were to rule narrowly for Omega someone will try to push the boundaries and use it to justify sending legal threats and cease and desist orders. Few if any people that deal in gray market imports have the resources for prolonged legal fights so we will still have the unintended consequence of fewer people taking the risk due to legal threats. If you think I'm being paranoid about that last part just look at some of the folk filing amicus briefs fro Omega. The RIAA and MPAA would never use legal tactics like that would they?
