The Supreme Court on Monday said Costco could be liable for copyright infringement for selling foreign-made watches without the manufacturer's authorization.

True - the Court split 4 to 4 and offered no reasoning for the vote, which technically means that no legal precedent by the high court is created. But on a practical level, it leaves in place the lower court's opinion which said that copyright law prevents Costco from re-selling foreign-made watches that it lawfully purchased.

There is also reason to believe that Justice Kagan might have also sided against Costco had she joined the debate since she once wrote a brief urging the Supreme Court to refuse Costco's appeal.

It will be quite amusing to see the reaction from people who support the current IP-regime but also claim to champion 'free market' principles. Their level of cognitive dissonance seems boundless. There can be no free markets without the freedom to re-sell goods which you have lawfully obtained. I should think that would be obvious, but apparently not to those who like to ape economic talking points without grasping the actual concepts that underlay them.

Nobody is accusing Costco of manufacturing false goods, placing Omega labels on non-Omega watches or making any form of 'copies' whatsoever. They are saying that once Omega sells its goods to party X, it should continue to have the legal right to prevent X from selling such goods to Y if it doesn't approve. To condone such power under the guise of 'free markets' is a perversion - pure and simple. But once you start equating real property with "intellectual property", perversion is sure to follow.

And now you have case where the first-sale doctrine (allowing you to re-sell previously bought goods without the manufacturer's permission) applies to domestic goods, but not overseas goods. More on the first-sale doctrine here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Meanwhile, you can read up on the details of the case at the links below:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/scotus-first-sale/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-supreme-court-divides-evenly-in-costco-gray-market-case.html

A link to the 9th Circuit's original ruling which provides much of the nitty-gritty legal details and background can be found here:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1488540.html

Audio of the Supreme Court arguments on this case can be found here:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_08_1423

[update] PDF Text transcript here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1423.pdf

UPDATE: More reactions and background from across the web here -

http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2010/12/costco-v-omega-afffired-by-equally.html

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-publishers-hollywood-win-an-unusual-victory-in-costco-v.-omega/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/12/copyright-defense-restricted/

A good analysis of the issues at stake before the decision was handed down here - http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfisher/2010/11/05/costco-v-omega-is-about-much-more-than-cheap-watches/

The IP Policy blog tries to make the case for copyright misuse in this case here - http://188ip.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/costco-v-omega-and-copyright-misuse/

We need to take measures against comment spam. Programmatic methods (better capchas and so forth) seem unlikely to work since some of the spam is clearly human generated. Moderation seems the best solution, but would likely to lead to substantial delays in posting. How do people feel about a limited moderation solution: anyone can flag a comment as spam causing the comment to vanish and the moderator to be notified so that it can be restored if it is not actually spam? This system seems possibly subject to abuse if commentators start marking each others posts as spam. Comments or alternative suggestions?

Kevin Drum realizes that patents aren't exactly a spur to invention.

According to some of the documents posted on Wikileaks, to lobby, nudge, pressure, threaten ... (I let you pick the right one) foreign governments into adopting stricter "IP" laws, in order to "protect" our "strategic interests" in their countries.

Nice.

SAP (the world's largest maker of business application software) has been ordered to pay $1.3-billion (with a 'B') to Oracle - the largest fine ever levied for a copyright infringement case (and the 23rd largest jury verdict in history).

That's ten times larger than the biggest verdict the RIAA was ever able to produce in its own litigation. I'd look for some legal challenges to this verdict, including some potential constitutional arguments which try to expand the reasoning behind BMW v. Gore [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_of_North_America,_Inc._v._Gore ]

Read all about it here:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/11/why-did-oracle-just-win-more-t.php

And here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-23/sap-must-pay-oracle-1-3-billion-over-unit-s-downloads.html

Apparently, many people choose this avenue for two reasons- convenience and ease of access. The limitations placed on local pharmacies by regulations make it impossible for buyers to get the dosages they want. In other words, it is impossible to buy Xanax online without prescriptions from local pharmacies. Since the production, distribution, and sale of Xanax pills is controlled for obvious reasons, buyers opt for online purchases to overcome these restrictions.

Also, the price of Xanax in online pharmacies is much lower than that of local stores and pharmacies. The ratio of Xanax 1 mg to each dollar is significantly cheaper. This makes it possible for users to order Xanax at prices half or even a third of that of local pharmacies. And given the wide range of brands on sale, it is not difficult to see why users may turn to a web-based Xanax pharmacy for their prescription medication.

Next, most pharmacies also provide various packages. Buyers can request a dosage that they want starting from as little as 30 pills to 360 pills. Xanax 0.25mg is the least potent and therefore least expensive tablet. This makes it possible for anyone to buy Xanax within a set budget and still save money. As for quality, there is no assurance that you will get your money's worth with cheap Xanax. Though generic brands are more popular, their quality is not guaranteed as they may not be tested.

Getting Xanax pills legally delivered to your home It is possible to place an order from an online store and get your supplies shipped to you overnight. You just have to select from a wide array, for instance, Xanax 0.5 mg, fill the details, checkout, and complete your order. Most pharmacies try to expedite deliveries after processing orders. The seller will require you to provide your personal details, contact address, and specify the recipient. With the increasing cases of fraud, most sellers guarantee confidentiality of personal details. You can make follow ups by phone or e-mail to confirm the expected day of delivery. This way, you can track your purchase and ensure that it reaches on time.

Consider to buying Xanax without a prescription from internet pharmacy? The tough laws and regulations on the local distribution and sale of Xanax have not closed the door of opportunity for people who want to buy Xanax without prescription. In fact, it has created an immense opportunity for online vendors and pharmacies to sell generic brands. Individuals who were limited on dosage because of prescriptions now have the leeway to access any amount of dosage.

Sadly, most websites don't caution buyers about the health risks involved and the dangers of using drugs without prescription. Especially with no regard to the dangers of starting with Xanax 2 mg. More often than not, buyers who have poor judgement are bound to use more prescriptions than required and in the end, they fall in to a vicious cycle of dependence and addiction.

The US Copyright Group is currently pursuing torrent users to recoup losses movie companies may have occurred. The damages sought are rather high, as expected, and they are asking thousands of users US$2500 so that the case can be dropped and not filed in court. Given the court costs in this US, this would be a sensible thing to do, unless those users somehow band together to share those costs.

Well, it turns out a lawyer has followed this train of thought and is now offering a legal kit for $19.95 that allows to fight against USCG. This is of course not at all what the latter intended, as it now itself has to go to court. The natural thing to do now is, of course, for USCG to sue this entrepreneurial lawyer who is causing it all these added costs, because it now has to deal with well informed defendants.

Details at the escapist.

Trademark suits can often be rather silly and highlight the high legal costs of maintaining sanity. This week-end's press gives us two nice examples.

PennLive.com reports that US "chocolate" maker Hershey is suing competitor Mars because the color scheme of its new Dove candy is too similar to the existing Reese candy. If you follow the link, you will notice that the two wrappers do not look alike at all. The point of contention is about the color choices: orange and various shades of brown. Mind you, this is about chocolate, which usually comes in various shades of brown...

The Daytona Beach News-Journal reports that a NY-based company has trademarked "Daytona Beach Bike Week", a popular event in Florida, and is now pursuing souvenir makers and sellers in Daytona Beach.

"In what appears to be the latest phase of a far-reaching federal crackdown on online piracy of music and movies, a number of sites that facilitate illegal file-sharing were shut down this week by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of the Department of Homeland Security."

Sisario, Ben. 2010. "U.S. Shuts Down Web Sites in Piracy Crackdown." New York Times (27 November). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?hp

BoingBoing.net's Cory Doctorow pens a smartly constructed essay exploring the question of what we should really want and expect from a copyright legal regime.

I am in complete agreement with the broad goal he advocates:

In my world, copyright's purpose is to encourage the widest participation in culture that we can manage - that is, it should be a system that encourages the most diverse set of creators, creating the most diverse set of works, to reach the most diverse audiences as is practical.

It is well worth reading his thoughts on how he would start to get us there.

Check out the full column here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/23/copyright-digital-rights-cory-doctorow