Legal Opinions Needed

The article I read about this case said it would pertain to anything manufactured outside the US And congress would need to update legal loophole that is being exploited by the text book publisher in this case.

While I don't doubt that congress will act if the SCOTUS upholds this ruling, I suspect that it will come along with some sort tax targeting eBay, craigslist and the like.

Trust me when I say this: company bean counters are furiously working their digits to the bone to see if it's worth it to extend this ruling to everything from medicine (ex: drug importation from Canada for seniors) to CDs, DVDs, and it wouldn't be a stretch for them to apply many a strawman argument just to get it on docket with a corporate friendly Supreme Court.

I fully understand defending domestic markets over that of foreign (THE most overlooked, basic tenet of Smith's view of capitalism) but this is merely the opening of Pandoras Box.

All the best,
Nonoise

Of all the things that keep me up at night worrying, this ranks at about number 1,003.

Has anyone actually read the Appellate Court's decision for Wiley vs. Kirtsaeng? 2nd Circuit, Wiley vs. Kirtsaeng

It's pretty clear that this was a commercial case of large scale fraud, not simply a college student selling a few imported textbooks on the side. There are other laws on the books that (theoretically) protect against this sort of thing. Ex. you can't import, let's say, iPhones from Mali and resell them in the U.S.

Even if this ruling is upheld, which is questionable with the majority on this court, this would prove to be almost impossible to administer and enforce. Frankly, unless you are a Tea Bag Federal Government conspiracy theorist, I would advise not worrying about it very much.

As a non-attorney spokesperson I feel loath to comment but if this decision is not thrown out it could lead some major craziness. 8^)

One doesn't have to be a Tea Bag Gov. conspiracy theorist to see what this highest of courts did in 'Citizens United'. All they need is an opening. I'll let recent history (Santa Clara), let alone what Jefferson's cousin did when the Supreme Court first interfered with the law, speak for itself.

All the best,
Nonoise