Oh dear, how much linkbait are we going to have to go through with this case? Look, your first sale rights within the US are perfectly safe. This case only affects people who do bulk buys in an overseas market and then try to resell within the US. Claims that it will be impossible to sell anything without an exhaustive audit trail are absurdly overblown. The legal issue here is whether a company has the right to exert control over the distribution of its product.
The USSC will probably find for the publisher on public policy grounds (IMHO), since it would be difficult for publishers/manufacturers to execute agreements with distributors if it were not also prepared to go bat against unauthorized distributors. Not the most consumer-friendly situation since it allows producers to engage in market partition, but on the other hand exclusive distribution agreements are often the key to establishing a market presence in the first place. The arguments in Omega v. Costco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale_...) are particularly instructive in this regard; amicus briefs in support of Costco offered long parades of horribles, but were built on absurd premises, such as speculation that courts would suddenly start interpreting statutory protections for libraries in direct contradiction of their plain meaning.
The USSC will probably find for the publisher on public policy grounds (IMHO), since it would be difficult for publishers/manufacturers to execute agreements with distributors if it were not also prepared to go bat against unauthorized distributors. Not the most consumer-friendly situation since it allows producers to engage in market partition, but on the other hand exclusive distribution agreements are often the key to establishing a market presence in the first place. The arguments in Omega v. Costco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale_...) are particularly instructive in this regard; amicus briefs in support of Costco offered long parades of horribles, but were built on absurd premises, such as speculation that courts would suddenly start interpreting statutory protections for libraries in direct contradiction of their plain meaning.