john roberts did mental gymnastics in order to achieve the big picture goal of not reversing obamacare in an election year and effectively making the court a political body
this is an interesting scenario for IP. it really may shape what defines ownership with IP in the current statutory scheme. the problem with IP is that our laws are written for an antiquated system, so we kind of have to hodge podge ad hoc law via courts with changing technology
this is about what you own and when
think of it this way: you own 5,000 songs on your ipod. but you have those files on another system (itunes, hard drive, whatever). you sell that ipod with 5,000 songs on it and retain your copy of the songs. what prevents you from just buying up 100 ipods and putting those 5,000 songs on each and re-selling for a profit? and if that's OK, what prevents you from just burning CDs and selling them for a profit? you "own" the songs. you own the physical CDs. all you're doing is mixing 2 things you own
quote:This x 1000
Well considering John Roberts did mental gymnastics to say that the government can force you to buy a private product I wouldn't be shocked if he does the same here to say you can't sell your own private possessions.
Gee, who knew voting for a bunch of criminals would result in this becoming an issue?
Tax liens and Eminent Domain have already neutered nearly all concepts of real ownership
Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4