Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 64.0

Cite as:  568 U. S. ____ (2013) 

23 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

disadvantage  foreign  holders  of  U. S.  copyrights.    This 
dissonance scarcely enhances the United States’ “role as a
trusted partner in multilateral endeavors.”  Vimar Seguros 
y  Reaseguros,  S.  A.  v.  M/V  Sky  Reefer,  515  U. S.  528, 
539 (1995). 

V 

I  turn  now  to  the  Court’s  justifications  for  a  decision 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  Copyright  Act’s  text  and 
history. 

A 

The  Court  asserts  that  its  holding  “is  consistent  with
antitrust  laws  that  ordinarily  forbid  market  divisions.” 
Ante,  at  32.  See  also  ante,  at  18  (again  referring  to  anti­
trust principles).  Section 602(a)(1), however, read as I do
and  as  the  Government  does,  simply  facilitates  copyright 
owners’  efforts  to  impose  “vertical  restraints”  on  distribu­
tors  of  copies  of  their  works.    See  Forsyth  &  Rothnie  435
(“Parallel  importation  restrictions  enable  manufacturers 
and distributors to erect ‘vertical restraints’ in the market 
through  exclusive  distribution  agreements.”).    See  gener- 
ally  Leegin  Creative  Leather  Products,  Inc.  v.  PSKS,  Inc., 
551  U. S.  877  (2007)  (discussing  vertical  restraints).    We 
have  held  that  vertical  restraints  are  not  per se  illegal
under §1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §1, because such
“restraints can have procompetitive effects.”  551 U. S., at 
881–882.17 

—————— 

17 Despite  the  Court’s  suggestion  to  the  contrary,  this  case  in  no 
way  implicates  the  per  se  antitrust  prohibition  against  horizontal 
“ ‘[a]greements  between  competitors  to  allocate  territories  to  minimize
competition.’ ”    Ante,  at  32  (quoting  Palmer  v.  BRG  of  Ga.,  Inc.,  498 
U. S. 46, 49 (1990) (per curiam)).  Wiley is not requesting authority to
enter  into  collusive  agreements  with  other  textbook  publishers  that 
would,  for  example,  make  Wiley  the  exclusive  supplier  of  textbooks 
on  particular  subjects  within  particular  geographic  regions.    Instead, 
Wiley asserts no more than the prerogative to impose vertical restraints