Kirtsaeng v. Wiley Case
ASCDI- The US Supreme Court “Got It Right” in the Kirtsaeng v. Wiley Case
March 19, 2013 Washington, D.C. – The Association of Service and Computer Dealers and the North American Association of Telecommunications Dealers (ASCDI) issued the following statement today after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley. Joseph Marion, ASCDI President said:
“The ASCDI applauds the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision in favor of Supap Kirtsaeng in this important copyright case. This decision is a win for anyone who purchases computer and telecom equipment including consumers, businesses and government. This decision affirms the first sale doctrine, protecting the rights of consumers and organizations to buy/sell/lease equipment that they bought and own, regardless of where those goods were made.
“We expect that some manufacturers will continue their attempts to eliminate owners’ rights and reduce competition in the global marketplace. We continue to see this trend by some manufacturers who have attempted to influence the U.S. government’s bid processes by encouraging the General Services Administration not to accept bids from small businesses who are not agents of the manufacturers. We see this trend in the efforts of some manufacturers to eliminate owners’ rights to import products by encouraging US Customs to seize legitimate, competitive products without the knowledge of the owner under the false claim that goods imported by small companies who are not agents of the manufacturers must be counterfeit. And we see this trend by some manufacturers who refuse to provide third party maintenance organizations or companies that wish to self-maintain the access to parts and diagnostics originally provided to the owners of technology equipment.
“The ASCDI will not rest until all owners of computer and telecom equipment are guaranteed the right to freely choose who supplies or maintains the equipment they lawfully purchased.”
The majority opinion clearly affirmed that the Copyright Act was not intended, and cannot be misconstrued, to limit the distribution of authentic goods.