RE: [dvd-discuss] Open with caution

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

Don't know if that's as much of a slam-dunk as you
think, Dave.  At least, not with that precedent.

If I understand this correctly, these are not books
that somebody has bought ... that would bring first-sale
rights into the picture, and I presume that is the
issue that the SC decision hinged on.  (After first
sale the publisher didn't have the right to demand
certain price for resale.)

These were books sent to medical professionals
from drug companies.  Promotional materials, essentially,
intended to encourage the doctors to use/recommend
whatever goods/services the company providing the
book had to offer.  

Well, as such I think this falls under a different
precedent.  IIRC any item recieved -unsolicited-
in the mail is a "gift", and no terms can be 
attached.  (Does anybody have the cite for this,
or am I completely misremembering?)


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kroll, Dave [mailto:Dave_Kroll@cargilldow.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 2:24 PM
> To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Open with caution 
> 
> 
> "...But if someone wants to slap some legalese of dubious 
> merit on the front
> of a book, why shouldn't they? Software publishers have been 
> doing it for
> years, after all, so it only seems fair that publishers of 
> other forms of
> intellectual property should have the same right to try to 
> put restrictions
> on how customers use their products...."
> 
> I would hope that the first time this gets before the courts, 
> it gets thrown
> out
> on its ear.  (I don't recall the SCoTUS case that said a book 
> publisher
> could
> not insist on a certain price when a book was resold.)  Using that
> precedent, it's a slam dunk, right?  "You can't do this in 
> books because
> the Supreme Court said so."
> 
> But the author's point about how caselaw supporting 
> shrinkwrap is starting
> to build a new common law interpretation makes me very 
> nervous.  Is there
> any judicial principle that would stop courts from giving 
> more weight to
> recent
> software shrinkwrap cases and less to a historical book 
> publishing case?
> 
> 
> 
> David Kroll
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Dean Sanchez [mailto:DSANCHEZ@fcci-group.com] 
> Sent:	Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:42 PM
> To:	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject:	[dvd-discuss] Open with caution  
> 
> Slashdot had a reference to this article about shrink-wrapped 
> book.   The
> beginning of the end?  Or the first shot in a the coming 
> revolution between
> the citizens and the IP industry?
> 
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/08/12/020812opgripe.xml
>