Not to mention all the T.V’s, game consoles, etc, all around sub $1k prices......yet, a decent hearing aid for my mom will go upwards of $3000! WTF?
Excuse me if I sound a little pissed, but it seems to me with the shrinking electronics, better capabilities, and technological advancements, not to mention the rapidly increasing potential user base, quality hearing aids should be coming in a *lot* cheaper than what we can find.
Adding fuel to my fire is the fact, a hearing aid will greatly improve my mom’s—not to mention millions of others out there—life a lot more. Currently she suffers from frustration and isolation with having to ask people to “speak up”, and nodding her head to things her kids and grandkids say.
We’ve tried the cheapies, and they’re fraught with problems.
So, can someone tell me why a hearing aid should be so expensive?"
schwit1 writes: The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will affect whether you can sell your iPad — or almost anything else — without needing to get permission from a dozen "copyright holders." Here are some things you might have recently done that will be rendered illegal if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision:
1. Sold your first-generation iPad on Craigslist to a willing buyer, even if you bought the iPad lawfully at the Apple Store. 2. Sold your dad's used Omega watch on eBay to buy him a fancier (used or new) Rolex at a local jewelry store. 3. Sold an "import CD" of your favorite band that was only released abroad but legally purchased there. Ditto for a copy of a French or Spanish novel not released in the U.S. 4. Sold your house to a willing buyer, so long as you sell your house along with the fixtures manufactured in China, a chandelier made in Thailand or Paris, support beams produced in Canada that carry the imprint of a copyrighted logo, or a bricks or a marble countertop made in Italy with any copyrighted features or insignia.
Here is what's going on.
The Supreme Court case concerns something called the "first-sale doctrine" in copyright law. Simply put, the doctrine means that you can buy and sell the stuff you purchase. Even if someone has copyright over some piece of your stuff, you can sell it without permission from the copyright holder because the copyright holder can only control the "first-sale." The Supreme Court has recognized this doctrine since 1908.
The first-sale doctrine is one thing that makes it lawful to sell almost any good. The companies that have gone to court and sued over selling their "copyrights" include a watchmaker and shampoo producer. They have gone to court arguing that one part of the Copyright Act — which gives them a right against unauthorized imports — invalidates the first-sale doctrine.
In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that the first-sale doctrine applies to any product manufactured in the United States, sold in the U.S., even if the first sale by the copyright holder was abroad and the item was imported back into the U.S. This decision was unanimous and rejected the interpretation preferred by the U.S. government's lawyer — and the biggest copyright holders.
The legal confusion today concerns only products made abroad.
Continuing a long string of similar cases, the Supreme Court will review a New York federal court decision that decided, in short, that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to any copyrighted product manufactured abroad. That case concerns textbooks.