Anyone who belives manufacturers should be allowed to ban grey importing (Sony and your lawyers, this means you) is a moron and a filthy scumbag.
Feel free to attempt to justify bans on grey importing in the comments, although if you do so attempt without succeeding then this will definitionally make you a moron and a filthy scumbag.
No, there is a legitimate manufacturers’ interest here. Small differences in specifications between different territories can be experienced by the consumer as faults, and the manufacturer ends up getting the grief (for example, if the thing overheats on UK voltage). This wouldn’t necessarily support an outright ban, as opposed to a fairly strict regime of labelling grey market kit as such, but there is a general principle that Sony have at least some rights to retain control over stuff that goes out with their name on it. If I set up a "grey market" version of SBBS on my own server you would probably ask me to turn it in, just on the offchance.
No, there isn’t a legitimate manufacturers’ interest here.
It’s not worth discussing why, just take it as read…
dsquared – I like you, and think you have said a lot of very sensible things in the past. But I think you are wrong here.
There isn’t a legitimate manufacturers’ interest in banning parallel importation. I’d support labeling just as an issue of consumer protection and the accurate description of goods. There are already laws which cover this sort of thing. The argument about (possible) consumer faults is specious. The ban applies if the products are identical – and has been applied – so that’s not the reason. And the ban on import covers items such as perfume and clothing, which can’t, even in theory, experience faults in this manner.
"there is a general principle that Sony have at least some rights to retain control over stuff that goes out with their name on it."
By selling something to you Sony gives up the right to retain control over it. If I bought a TV at home, I could sell it on without any problems. If I bought a TV abroad, and then sell it on at home, I get a call from the lawyers. This is a double standard for the express purpose of enforcing a monopoly. I’m fairly sure that you’re not in favour of the extention of right you mention above to items that are not imported.
"If I set up a "grey market" version of SBBS on my own server you would probably ask me to turn it in, just on the offchance."
Well this would be copyright infringement – not parallel importation. If he sold copies of SBBS as a magazine, and you decided to buy copies abroad and sell them on at home then that is a completely different issue.
But the context here is importing Japanese playstations. These aren’t and can’t be identical products. Also it appears to be about importing them before an official launch date which raises a whole different set of issues; for example if Sony have pre-sold units to people who thought they were going to be among the first to get them, then grey market imports leave these purchasers feeling burnt and that illwill is going to attach to Sony, not the importer.
I’d agree that there shouldn’t be a blanket manufacturer’s right to prohibit grey market imports, but there isn’t any such right and the European courts have in the past ruled against manufacturers who (ab)use their trademark rights to create local monopolies. I just don’t agree that there should be no such rights at all.
"But the context here is importing Japanese playstations. These aren’t and can’t be identical products."
As long as they aren’t passed off as identical products I’ve no problem with it. My argument was to illustate that the law isn’t limited to cases where the products are different, so this can’t be the reason behind it or its enforcement by corporations.
I don’t think the concerns about the "official launch date" and good-will matter in the slightest. If Sony make dubious promises to their customers then that is their problem and customers have a right to get redress. It’s worth noting that purchasers will feel burnt if people buy them abroad for their own use (which is legal). So the law doesn’t prevent this.
"…there shouldn’t be a blanket manufacturer’s right to prohibit grey market imports, but … the European courts have in the past ruled against manufacturers who (ab)use their trademark rights to create local monopolies."
It depends on the context. Parallel importation within the EU is legal. Which is good, and importantly – it is legal even if the electrical difference that you mention are the case. This is a vast improvement on the pre-common market situation. But parallel importation from outside the EU is illegal. There is a blanket manufacturer’s right to prohibit grey market imports from outside the EU. And it’s the EU’s Trademark Directive which makes it illegal and the European Courts which uphold the Trademark rights.
What sort of rights do you think corporations should have over stuff that goes out with their name on? What you’ve already said implies opposition to the Single Market.
Nikolai – I agree with you, but your electrical point is a red herring. All electrical goods sold in the EU must operate at 230V 50Hz; all electrical suppliers in the EU must supply electricity at 230V 50Hz.
The electrical point was just one example of "small differences in specifications" causing problems. So I think the general point stands.
I think that they should have a right to ban grey imports if and only if they can show that grey imports cause material damage to their brand value and that this damage is materially greater than the benefit to consumers. I would regard it as persuasive evidence in making my judgement if the company could prove that it did not operate a discriminatory pricing policy between two markets.