Full value test dead after Quality King?

The Supreme Court's reversal of Quality King v. L'Anza seems to have left unresolved whether the "full value" test the court below used for determining when a "first sale" occurred may still be used. The Ninth Circuit in _Denbicare_ adopted a contrary position to that of L'Anza v. Quality King, so what the 9th Cir. law is as to when the distribution right is exhausted *generally* is not exactly clear.

The "full value" test, coming from a 1909 Act case in the 2nd cir (Platt & Munk v. Rep. Graphics), provides that the distribution right is exhausted only when the copyright owner has received the "full value" from the sale of a copy.

An argument can be made that the 1976 U.S. Act implicitly denied the validity of the "full value" test because the plain language of 109(a) does *not* require a sale to exhaust the distribution right, just lawful transfer of ownership, presumably encompassing gift, devise, etc. Compare 109(a) with 109(d).

The Ninth Cir. below had held the statute on its face did not answer the question in L'Anza and then went on to adopt the "full value" test, while the Sup. Ct. held the plain language of the statute could decide the case. Did the Court renounce the "full value" test by its reliance on the literal language of the statute?

   Darren Donnelly   |   o Finger email address for public PGP key 
 <donnelly[_at_]slip.net> |   o Put AutoReply in the Subject field       
   Santa Clara, CA   |     to receive confirmation of receipt