25-11-2001 18:49									#61
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Totally different matter Infatuation, these are second hand goods you are talking about and have an element of risk in buying them, hence the greatly reduced price. With a new item, the same does not apply, it should be in A1 condition.

	25-11-2001 23:27									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

If retailers can do whatever they want, how do you get around the provision of service problem in the train set example?

IIRC you yourself admitted that toys and clothing were not exactly the same thing, but I think the same argument still applies to both though.

First option is to have the "high service" stores accept a percentage loss of their time to customers who obtain information etc. but who do not actually buy, and apply that figure to their profit / loss account (or whatever, it's been a while since I looked at these things) to see if the high service / high price option is actually a viable one. If it is, then no problem, if it isn't then fine, the customer has used their influence to indicate that their preference is for affordable prices. I understand that, that is how you are supposed to operate within the market.

Basically you don't try to force the market to allow you to achieve what you want to achieve, you look at the market and only operate where a genuine business opportunity exists.

The second option, which is more or an option for the manufacturers than the retailers (and thus more applicable to our jeans example than your trains) is for the manufacturer to set up agreements with the retailers they sell too. If they are concerned about image, then they should not try to make an extra quick buck by selling the same thing cheaper via another channel. Do that and they deserve the inevitable result.

Going back to jeans rather than train sets. Sure Tesco may have some scale advantages, but this does not appear to be the significant factor when we compare UK prices to US prices, rather than specialist shop to large chain.

Besides if people are still interested in service then let them cover the costs of providing it. If £50 is added to the bill to cover the "time wasters" then surely if you want the service you'd love to pay the extra £50 for the fawning sales person whom you can't get away from, because, for you, it would be worth it. If not, then there is no opportunity for the retailer to operate in that manner.

EiF ... you are not given permission to agree with me, mostly or otherwise. You're a right wing Tory voter and thus persona non grata

	25-11-2001 23:59									#63
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

LOL Gary... actually I'm a centrist Tory member.

And I'm still agreeing with you.

	26-11-2001 00:11									#64
	Testify, brotha!! Get a bigger avatar today!

Gary, you and I are on the same wavelength.

	26-11-2001 05:11									#65
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Iain, the implications of the verdict go far beyond the firms involved in the trial and besides, the brand and the firm Levi Strauss are in an advanced state of decay anyway. Italy and France have a lot of luxury good manufacturers that own valuable and exclusive brands and the verdict is beneficial to them.

	26-11-2001 06:48									#66
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I agree totally with Gary and GP here.

If Levi's sold its jeans without a 'no reselling' order in the contract, then they are SOL. If the retailers decide to resell it, that is their own business if the contract doesn't say they can't do it. And the second retailer should be able to charge whatever price it desires.

In a certain way, I'm reminded of computer game prices. Today, I was home, and went to the mall. At Electronics Boutique, Europa Universalis II was $45. At Babbages, it was $40. Babbages decided to sell it for less for their own reasons. They bought the game, and decided to charge a lower price than its competitor.

Shouldn't Tesco be able to sell the jeans at a lower price?

	26-11-2001 07:02									#67
	Tired of ads?

Thanks Colon, that's what I wanted to know.

Hopefully Imran won't get quite so offended when I say I agree with him too.

	26-11-2001 07:33									#68
	Full PM-box? Change here!

What about me, Iaiaiaian? You gonna include me in the buddy club?

	26-11-2001 08:21									#69
	Put an end to popups!

What's up, George? Jealous are we...?

"D'yer wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang?"

	26-11-2001 09:47									#70
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by *End Is Forever* What's up, George? Jealous are we...? "D'yer wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang?"

You sound like one of those English gutter children from To Sir with Love. Don't make me get all Sidney Poitnier on your ass.

	26-11-2001 14:13									#71
	Suffering from ads?

GP:

"Why? What's the connection? We're talking about resale of goods they made themselves. From a country where their trademark is honored."

Depending on the trade mark law, enforcement issues, vertical restraints issues etc they may want to chose different schemes for different areas. I don't really take sides on the issue, but I can see the arguments for both sides...

"But the point of this case was that the EU court said that their was no need for Levi's to have any restrictions on sales... It's as if they didn't fully own them REGARDLESS OF WHETHER RESALE RESTRICTIONS WERE STIPULATED OR AGREED TO."

As I said before, they don't own the trademark. That's the entire point of having a trademark. For grey imports into the EU, they'd need Levi's consent.

Iain:

". I was just wondering what would prompt the French and Italian governments to support Levis... do they have big factories there or something?"

AFAIK it's also (apart from luxury goods business) a legal tradition issue. UK had international, many continental countries domestic exhaustion.

Imran:

"If Levi's sold its jeans without a 'no reselling' order in the contract, then they are SOL."

IIRC (and I can't be arsed to read the case again) Levi's sold with such a clause to the purchaser in Singapore or whereever ?

Also, domestic exhaustion was well established for the EU, so at least in that regard, it wasn't really needed.

	26-11-2001 14:58									#72
	Support Apolyton

Yeah, Imran is right ( I agree with him). Isn't it amazing are so often to espouse the virtues of capitalism when it suits them, but are still willing to utilise decidedly uncompetitive practices in this manner to artificially elevate prices.

quote: Originally posted by *End Is Forever* "D'yer wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang?"

Gary Glitter lyrics are definitely a no-go area now I am afraid Iain, unless you want to be called a nonce

	26-11-2001 15:26									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Considering that you have reduced the issue to "cheaper jeans - yes or no ", I dont find it too surprising that this issue makes for strange agreements...

	26-11-2001 21:40									#74
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Roland GP: As I said before, they don't own the trademark. That's the entire point of having a trademark. For grey imports into the EU, they'd need Levi's consent. IIRC (and I can't be arsed to read the case again) Levi's sold with such a clause to the purchaser in Singapore or whereever ?

Roland,

Of course they don't own the trademark. Thye own the goods that have the trademark on them. If there is some special reservation of ownership rights attached to the trademark, why doesn't this apply internally (within the EU/UK)?

The ruling said that resale stipulations were irrelevant. I.e. even if NONE were agreed to, the trademark owner can STILL prevent resale. (I read that ruling.) The ruling said it was therefore irrlelevant for them to rule on whether there were valid resale restirictions. Anyways, (as you admitted) those restrictions would only bind the Singapore signer...not subsequent buyers. (AND on a practical note, Levi's can stop selling to shadey Singapore dealers...who grey their goods.)

	26-11-2001 22:00									#75
	Increase the size of your Attachments

"If there is some special reservation of ownership rights attached to the trademark, why doesn't this apply internally (within the EU/UK)?"

Cause they could then price discriminate within one regulatory system. Btw, this point is a matter of legislation, not of case law.

"The ruling said that resale stipulations were irrelevant. I.e. even if NONE were agreed to, the trademark owner can STILL prevent resale. (I read that ruling.)"

They are not irrelevant. The issue was happens in the absence of explicit agreements, and the court held that consent is reqzured, and it was quite restrictive on what to see as an implied consent.

"... those restrictions would only bind the Singapore signer...not subsequent buyers."

As a matter of fact you could break that "chain". As a matter of law that's not so clear. It's a bit like buying from a thief... and wheter you own the goods bought.

	27-11-2001 00:25									#76
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Roland Cause they could then price discriminate within one regulatory system. Btw, this point is a matter of legislation, not of case law.

A simpler answer would be that there is no hidden trademark resale reservation. That I can sell the jeans to whoever I want. The import case is the departure from the rule, not the reverse.

quote: They are not irrelevant. The issue was happens in the absence of explicit agreements, and the court held that consent is reqzured, and it was quite restrictive on what to see as an implied consent.

We are in agreement. I am making the point that the resale agreemetns no longer need to be negotiated by the seller. Therefore the status of the Singapore agreement is irrelevent. The importer has to get premission from Levi's.

quote: As a matter of fact you could break that "chain".

Agreed. That was my point. Someone can break the chain and the recourse from both a legal and business standpoint should be against the "breaker".

quote: As a matter of law that's not so clear. It's a bit like buying from a thief... and wheter you own the goods bought.

Are you making that claim? What does the law say in general on the issue of resale of goods that have resale restrictions? Is recourse against the chain breaker or against people further down?

	27-11-2001 13:27									#77
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

"A simpler answer would be that there is no hidden trademark resale reservation."

SIMPLE ? HEY IT'S A LEGAL ISSUE!!!!

"That I can sell the jeans to whoever I want. The import case is the departure from the rule, not the reverse."

This is for you economists - rule/exception in law is a matter of legal technique, not substance.

"Are you making that claim?"

What claim ?

"What does the law say in general on the issue of resale of goods that have resale restrictions? Is recourse against the chain breaker or against people further down?"

Well that varies a lot, esp between common and civil law. Colleagues of mine are participating in a comparative study on a subissue of that (reservation of property); shall I notify you when it's published ? Couple hundred pages...

	28-11-2001 02:15									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Roland "A simpler answer would be that there is no hidden trademark resale reservation." SIMPLE ? HEY IT'S A LEGAL ISSUE!!!! "That I can sell the jeans to whoever I want. The import case is the departure from the rule, not the reverse." This is for you economists - rule/exception in law is a matter of legal technique, not substance. "Are you making that claim?" What claim ? "What does the law say in general on the issue of resale of goods that have resale restrictions? Is recourse against the chain breaker or against people further down?" Well that varies a lot, esp between common and civil law. Colleagues of mine are participating in a comparative study on a subissue of that (reservation of property); shall I notify you when it's published ? Couple hundred pages...

LOL, Roland.

Just the exective summary version. Don't need new research. Just the general answer...maybe a few comments on departures, etc. But start with an answer, then qualify.

I don't need to wait for the final publication. I'll trust you to get it past the peer review. Just give me the key take-aways.

	28-11-2001 12:59									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Fine, Mr engineer-accountant. As for our law, shall we talk about obligatory (obligatorische) or property-related (dingliche) restrictions ?

Seriously, the only short answer I can give is on "Is recourse against the chain breaker or against people further down?" - usually people "further down" who acted bona fide will be protected; alternatively though they could have to hand over the goods and seek compensation from the "chain-breaker". Most legal systems will have a mix of those, we have the first for consumers and IIRC the second one for businesses. (this is a general rule for property/contract, intellectual property is a different animal)

	28-11-2001 20:01									#80
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Herr academic lawyer...mit der broken knee ,

You introduced the issue of similarity to stolen property. I just want you to state how close the similarity is. To understand what assertion is being made.

Thanks for your info.

	28-11-2001 21:38									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

My knee is getting better, thanx.

My point was about the similarity of the problem, the solutions differ.

More generally: If you look at economic effects of law you need a sort of pre-legal, economic attribution of goods, income etc. You'll run into problems with that in analysing the basic legal provisions that decide borderline cases - and I'd say there is not even a clearcut answer whether intellectual property rights should be considered pre-legal or a purely law-created beast. So maybe the economic answer is there should be no trademarks at all ?

	28-11-2001 21:47									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Nah...I don't think you need to complicate it so much (but of course feel free...since you're a lawyer...and an academic one...whose knee is still hurting ).

The simple solution is to say that trademarks and patents affect the ability to make and sell the goods originally. but that there is no "secret reserved ownership" floating in the jeans afterwards. Really it seems silly to think of some general right of trademarks that only applies in this one recent case, doesn't apply internally, etc.

Maybe there is a secret reserved right of the trademark guys so that I need to get explicit permission to cut holes in the jeans. Or maybe I need permission for certain questionable activities...hmmm? Got any cute frauleins handy!? We could get a test case here...we'd even have the international angle...you could birng in the Us consulate and everything. I'd be the EU's prisoner of love...

	28-11-2001 21:54									#83
	Got spare money?

"but that there is no "secret reserved ownership" floating in the jeans afterwards."

What if jeans were stolen and resold couple of times ? Would the "reserved" ownership of the initional owner "float on" ?

And why is it you sicko derive such pleasure from my hurting knee ? (ambiguity intended)

	28-11-2001 22:05									#84
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Roland "but that there is no "secret reserved ownership" floating in the jeans afterwards." What if jeans were stolen and resold couple of times ? Would the "reserved" ownership of the initional owner "float on" ? And why is it you sicko derive such pleasure from my hurting knee ? (ambiguity intended)

*Resists urge for kneepad comment*

Roland, the difference here is that the goods weren't stolen, they were sold. And the EU ruling said that the people down the chain have to go back and get permission to import regardless of wether resale restrictions were negotiated or not. It's not just a "broken chain", but even if there never were any resale restrictions. Maybe every good should be treated that way...I sell some steel to the EU...Anybody later on who wants to ship it back has to check with me.

	28-11-2001 22:12									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

"Maybe every good should be treated that way..."

Works for Microcrap.