Bartertown.com

Now I dont know much about the case, but it seems like it has some possible implications, especially if Ebay is getting involved:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-r ... 2012-10-04

Figure it might be relevant since GW is a UK company.....

I saw this on the early morning local news. It affects everything. Garage sales. Libraries selling used books. You selling your car, to a dealer or a private individual; everything. The news said it's been a legal case since 2002.

so much for free enterprise......

basicly it says every product is still owned by the maker since it is the companies IP. [intellectual property]
And since it's still it's IP, it should be paid a roayalty. that means we never own anything.

kturock wrote:basicly it says every product is still owned by the maker since it is the companies IP. [intellectual property]
And since it's still it's IP, it should be paid a roayalty. that means we never own anything.

so if we dont own anything than we are renting it. so i should go to dodge to fix my truck. it only needs a new bumper (rusting), new bed (rusting), tranny work, engine tune up, new paint and body work in some spots and a check engine light that goes on every time i go on the highway for the 2nd time in one day.

and since im renting it I wont be paying for the bill for it to be fixed since I dont own it.

check most lease agreements, you're responsible for maintenance. This popped up early in lease agreements back in the 80's.. also in most house/apartment rentals.

kturock wrote:I saw this on the early morning local news. It affects everything. Garage sales. Libraries selling used books. You selling your car, to a dealer or a private individual; everything. The news said it's been a legal case since 2002.

Not just that, but you also have groups like Goodwill as they rely on donated goods to fund their operations (which would also be in jeopardy), you have Costco who often purchases through liquidation companies, you have the American Library Association who also relies on donated books and sees the fall of doctrine of first sale to actually potentially lead to a fall of the lending practice which libraries engage in.

I can see it now....People advertising that this item was made in America and it costs more so that you know you can sell it later without getting in trouble.

I wonder how that works for parts of things that are produced in other countries? Can you only sell part of it? That would be stupid.

No one needs to be concerned about this.

Given the size of the secondary market, a ruling upholding this idea by the SC would have a huge negative impact on the economy. Further, such a ruling would be incompatible with 100 years of market history AND would fail to reflect the practices of virtually every American.

Gotta admire the guy that broke the system though....

Also, I'd think any company that went after second-hand sellers, even if this case is upheld, would 1) lose a tremendous amount of public good-will, which is a very valuable thing, and 2) be so hard-pressed to enforce their royalty claims that they'd either give up or go out of business trying to chase every person down.

I'm not particularly worried.

I don't know. Given SC rulings of late, i wouldn't be surprised if this came down on the side of corporations. Every silly ruling lately has been a thinly veiled n od to business enterprise in the guise offirst amendment rights. But I've been called cynical before.

ChaplainRobb wrote:Given SC rulings of late, i wouldn't be surprised if this came down on the side of corporations. Every silly ruling lately has been a thinly veiled n od to business enterprise in the guise offirst amendment rights. But I've been called cynical before.

Coming down on the side of American corporations is one thing; coming down on the side of a bunch of Made in China corporations is something else (even if a lot of American corps are Making in China now too).

The secondary car market alone should be enough to stop this in its tracks.

s_o_r_r_o_w wrote:No one needs to be concerned about this.

Given the size of the secondary market, a ruling upholding this idea by the SC would have a huge negative impact on the economy. Further, such a ruling would be incompatible with 100 years of market history AND would fail to reflect the practices of virtually every American.

Gotta admire the guy that broke the system though....

*ahem*

They upheld Obamacare, with the host of negatives to the economy. They wont save us from ourselves.

OK folks, we are starting to get into political territory and nobody wants to mix politics and toy soldiers. If I see any more political posts, (I don't care what your political affiliation,) they will be nuked and you will be getting a board warning.

-HZ

I so badly want to reply but will bite my tongue and sit on my hands, ducktape my head, and fix my tin foil hat first before I sit on my hands of course.