Bad SCOTUS. : (

[Pez7378]

Eating the watch isn't the issue. It's passing it.

[cardiver]

Eating the watch isn't the issue. It's passing it.

Just passing time.....

[Pez7378]

Eating the watch isn't the issue. It's passing it.

Just passing time.....

[airsix]

This is awesome. Give me your best hijack!

[nilsdiver]

The design of the face or some unique attribute of the mechanics could be copywrited. But if you sell the watch you relinquish rights to dictate how its used or resold. Making replicas would be a clear copywrite violation, reselling the same watch - not. Absent a special agreement of sale reserving certain rights. Reserving the right to set future prices is not in the spirit of copywrite laws.

I think that is done via a design patent and not copyright. But I'm no expert on the subject.

[Peter Guy]

Did y'all read the various statutes that were quoted? Did any of you read the 9th C's opinion?

Omega put a design on each watch and so there was a copyright of the design and the watches were sold to some 3rd countries. That put the watches directly within the scope of the law that CONGRESS had passed:

Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies ․ of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies ․ under section 106, actionable under section 501. 2

While it seems pretty clear that if an individual purchased an Omega watch in a 3rd country, the doctrine of "first sale" would apply so you, as an individual, would be able to resell the watch in the US.

BUT here, where the sole purpose of Costco importing the watches was for resale, that, at least as I understand what Congress did, would violate the copyright laws of the US.

There is no legitimate reason NOT to let companies market products at different prices in different countries and it would clearly negatively effect the profitability to allow someone to get around the marketing decision of the company. No entity has the right to buy a product -- the seller should ALWAYS have the right to refuse to sell. Omega had a right to rely upon the US law which said that it could sell its copyrighted product in country C at a price relevant to country C without having to worry about a Costco buying up the product in country C to sell in Country B -- a country in which Omega had made a marketing decision that its products should be priced at a different level.

I'm for the rights of the seller -- and if you don't like what the seller is doing, don't buy the product. And this is true whether it is an overpriced watch or an overpriced piece of scuba gear.

[airsix]

I'm with you about half way. I agree that Omega as the seller has the right to control any and all aspects of the first sale. However, if they don't like Costco importing them they should take care of that problem by preventing the first sale. Once Omega has been paid and handed off the goods I don't think they should have any say past that point. We aren't talking about intellectual property. Its a watch. Once it's sold their control of it (the physical object, not its design, likeness, or other IP) should cease. I know that isn't the law. That's just my opinion.

Sent from my TRS-80 using Tapatalk

[CaptnJack]

Agree with Ben here. If Costco hordes the watches, resells them at a loss, whatever its none of Omega's business after the first transaction which they willingly entered. They should not get to make marketing decisions about the pricing and markup on goods for resale - that's Costco's purview. However, Omega could price their watches higher just for Costco regardless of country of purchase if they wanted. I'm sure they probably already have volume discounts and such.

[airsix]

I do concede that in my ignorance I've contradicted my own opinion. Good on Peter for showing the holes in my logic.

[Grateful Diver]

It'd be interesting to know whether these watches are being sold by Internet retailers in the USA ... and if so, if it's at the mandated "USA" price.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[ArcticDiver]

Question. Really; a question?

How is this situation different from that in many other industries where market boundaries and the price structure is part of the dealer contract? It is pretty common I think for a manufacturer or distributor to specify in the retailer's contract stocking and price structure for their products. Also, to prohibit importation of their product into a state by anyone else.

I'm thinking of two specific things that prompted this question: Apple fixing prices on their products and beverage companies specifying price and no competition within their contract areas. But, those may not be pertient in dive equipment, I don't know.

(edited to clean up language)