[MRM]

Before anyone gets too upset, the case doesn't have anything to do with anything the article says it does. This case is simply about whether a publisher or manufacturer can enforce its own world pricing policy. It's the old drugs from Canada issue. Drugs are cheaper in Canada, so people like to buy them there and bring them back for use in the US. Manufacturers, including publishers, don't like to compete with their own products from people who buy them from the factory in a different country and then resell them somewhere else.

This is the bane of all manufacturers. They all set up licenses and contracts to prevent resales back in the home country. This case is just dealing with that issue in a printed intellectual property context with implications for digitally copywrited products. Nothing else.

No one is going to be stopped from reselling their car or old iPhone or anything else they own.

The article is deliberately misleading and tries to get you all upset over nothing. This is more of an end user certificate violation issue.