Qwen3-235B vs DeepSeek V3.2

The 2013 Supreme Court case involving a Thai student at Cornell University is *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.* [1]. The case centered on Supap Kirtsaeng, who had textbooks printed abroad by Wiley’s international subsidiary shipped to him by friends and family, which he resold in the U.S. Wiley sued, claiming copyright infringement, but the Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Kirtsaeng, affirming that the "first sale" doctrine applies to legally purchased foreign-made copies [2]. This decision was compared to the 1984 *Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios* (Betamax case) due to its sweeping implications for consumer rights and international copyright law [3]. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) filed an amicus brief supporting Kirtsaeng, arguing that upholding the first sale doctrine for imported goods was essential for secondary markets, libraries, and consumers, warning that restricting it would lead to price discrimination and hinder free trade [4]. Conversely, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) opposed the ruling, contending that it would undermine copyright holders’ ability to control distribution and segment global markets, potentially reducing incentives to innovate [5]. Legal analysts predicted that publishers would adopt a strategic shift toward market segmentation by implementing stricter regional pricing, licensing terms, and differentiated product versions to maintain pricing control despite the ruling [6]. Some publishers began printing distinct international editions of textbooks to complicate resale arbitrage, exploiting differences in product design rather than relying solely on copyright enforcement [7]. ## References [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_c07d.pdf [2] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/ [3] https://harvardlawreview.org/2013/06/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc-and-the-fragmentation-of-the-first-sale-doctrine/ [4] https://www.ce.org/amicus-briefs [5] https://www.bsa.org/resource-library/brief-kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons [6] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/business/kirtsaeng-v-wiley-echoes-sony-betamax-case.html [7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2013/03/19/3f8b6a3c-90a9-11e2-9e2f-54143b4dbffb_story.html

The 2013 case is *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.*, which involved Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai graduate student at Cornell who imported and sold lower-priced, lawfully made foreign editions of textbooks. The Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling affirmed that the first sale doctrine applies to copies of copyrighted works lawfully made abroad, a decision analysts compared to the foundational *Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios* (the "Betamax" case) for its broad impact on commerce and consumer rights [1][2]. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) supported Kirtsaeng, arguing that a ruling for the publisher would create "uncertainty and disruption" in the vast secondary markets for goods like cars, electronics, and books that contain copyrighted software or labeling. The CEA contended that barring the resale of foreign-made goods would stifle innovation, harm consumers, and impose a massive burden on retailers and distributors to track the geographic origin of every item [3][1]. Conversely, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) opposed the ruling, warning that applying the first sale doctrine to foreign-made copies would undermine the copyright system's ability to support differential global pricing. The BSA argued this would "eviscerate" the economic incentive for publishers and software makers to distribute works in lower-income markets at reduced prices, ultimately harming those very consumers [4][3]. In response to the ruling, publishers and copyright holders were predicted to adopt a strategic shift toward greater "market segmentation" through contractual and technological means. Specifically, they were expected to move away from relying on geographic distribution rights and instead use non-negotiable license agreements that prohibit transfer, employ region-specific digital locks, or develop distinct, region-coded digital products to maintain price differentiation and control after the initial sale [3][4]. ## References [1] Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.* Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-697 [2] SCOTUSblog. *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.* Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/ [3] The National Law Review. *The Supreme Court's Decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons and its Potential Impact on Licensing and Technology.* Retrieved from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-s-decision-kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-and-its-potential-impact [4] Berkeley Technology Law Journal. *After Kirtsaeng: Market Segmentation and Copyright Owners' Control of the International Resale Market.* Retrieved from https://btlj.org/2015/01/after-kirtsaeng-market-segmentation-and-copyright-owners-control-of-the-international-resale-market/