以下擷取自本判決。 [137 S.Ct. 1535] Under the "first sale doctrine," which is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), when a copyright owner sells a lawfully made copy of its work, it loses the power to restrict the purchaser's freedom "to sell or otherwise dispose of ... that copy."
[137 S.Ct. 1536] And differentiating the patent exhaustion and copyright first sale doctrines would make little theoretical or practical sense: The two share a "strong similarity ... and identity of purpose,"
and many everyday products — "automobiles, microwaves, calculators, mobile phones, tablets, and personal computers" — are subject to both patent and copyright protections, see Kirtsaeng, 568 U.S., at 545, 133 S.Ct. 1351; Brief for Costco Wholesale Corp.
有空再來看下這個案子。 A 2013 copyright case, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons Inc. , called Jazz Photo into question. It held that exhaustion of U.S. copyrights occurred by an authorized sale abroad.
John Wiley authorized sale of English-language textbooks in Thailand which stated they were not to be taken (without permission) into the United States. Kirtsaeng imported used books from Thailand into the U.S. and resold them. The court held that Kirtsaeng could raise the defense of exhaustion of rights.
「美國國會將『散布權耗盡』原則明文規定於美國現行著作權法第109條（a）項。該條文規定：『儘管著作權法第106條（3）項賦予著作權人享有以銷售或其他移轉物權的方式散布其依據美國著作權法合法製作（lawfully made under this title ）之著作重製物的專有權利，但依據美國著作權法合法製作之著作重製物的物權所有人或物權所有人之授權人得以在未經著作權人授權下，將其持有之特定著作重製物銷售或以任何方式處分。』 根據此一原則，一旦著作權人出售著作重製物，他嗣後對這些著作重製物不得行使散布權，其後這些著作重製物之物權所有人基本上可以任意處分該著作重製物，例如出售、贈與、出租、出借著作重製物。」
17 U.S.C. § 109(a)
Roberts大法官指出，要區分著作權法的第一次銷售原則與專利法的權利耗盡原則，沒有理論或實際上的意義，因為兩個原則在本質與目的上有很高的相似性，而且許多產品上面（例如汽車、微波爐、計算機、手機、平板電腦、個人電腦），同時有專利的保護，也有著作權的保護。
Impression v. Lexmark, 137 S.Ct. at 1534
因此我覺得107年美國最高法院的判決，應該具有相當程度的共識及重要性。
從Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc.案...
[137 S.Ct. 1535]
Under the "first sale doctrine," which is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), when a copyright owner sells a lawfully made copy of its work, it loses the power to restrict the purchaser's freedom "to sell or otherwise dispose of ... that copy."
And differentiating the patent exhaustion and copyright first sale doctrines would make little theoretical or practical sense: The two share a "strong similarity ... and identity of purpose,"
A 2013 copyright case, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons Inc. , called Jazz Photo into question. It held that exhaustion of U.S. copyrights occurred by an authorized sale abroad.
從美國最高法院Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.案探討美國真品平行...
本案中文研析
根據此一原則，一旦著作權人出售著作重製物，他嗣後對這些著作重製物不得行使散布權，其後這些著作重製物之物權所有人基本上可以任意處分該著作重製物，例如出售、贈與、出租、出借著作重製物。」
發這噗並不是想駁倒特定人物或事件，而是覺得其中有些概念需要釐清，因為它們可能在事件傳播的過程中讓人誤解了。
這些判決之所以會出現，也是因為各方有諸多爭議，在法庭上經過多次辯論才得出，其中有許多周全的思考和邏輯推演，也納入了在別的判決所得出的結論，我覺得都十分值得一看。