Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 63

22 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

Property  L.  Rev.  387,  417–418  (2005)  (same  with  respect 
to New Zealand and Taiwan).

Even if the text and history of the Copyright Act were am- 
biguous on the answer to the question this case presents—
they  are  not,  see  Parts  II–III,  supra16—I 
which 
would resist a holding out of accord with the firm position 
the United States has taken on exhaustion in internation­
al  negotiations.  Quality  King,  I  acknowledge,  discounted 
the  Government’s  concerns  about  potential  inconsistency 
with  United  States  obligations  under  certain  bilateral 
trade  agreements.  See  523  U. S.,  at  153–154.    See  also 
Quality  King  Brief  22–24  (listing  the  agreements).    That 
decision,  however,  dealt  only  with  copyright-protected 
products made in the United States.  See 523 U. S., at 154 
(GINSBURG,  J.,  concurring).    Quality  King  left  open  the
question  whether  owners  of  U. S.  copyrights  could  retain 
control  over  the  importation  of  copies  manufactured  and 
sold  abroad—a  point  the  Court  obscures,  see  ante,  at  33 
(arguing  that  Quality  King  “significantly  eroded”  the
national-exhaustion principle that, in my view, §602(a)(1)
embraces).  The Court today answers that question with a
resounding “no,” and in doing so, it risks undermining the
United  States’  credibility  on  the  world  stage.    While  the 
Government  has  urged  our  trading  partners  to  refrain
from adopting international-exhaustion regimes that could 
benefit  consumers  within  their  borders  but  would  impact 
adversely on intellectual-property producers in the United
States,  the  Court  embraces  an  international-exhaustion 
rule  that  could  benefit  U. S.  consumers  but  would  likely 

—————— 

16 Congress hardly lacks capacity to provide for international exhaus­
tion  when  that  is  its  intent.    Indeed,  Congress  has  expressly  provided
for  international  exhaustion  in  the  narrow  context  of  semiconductor 
chips  embodying  protected  “mask  works.”    See  17  U. S. C.  §§905(2), 
906(b).    See  also  2  M.  Nimmer  &  D.  Nimmer,  Copyright  §8A.06[E], 
p. 8A–37  (2012)  (hereinafter  Nimmer)  (“[T]he  first  sale  doctrine  under
[§906(b)] expressly immunizes unauthorized importation.”).