holding that the right to control future disposition of goods sold was not a property right within the meaning of the wire fraud statute in a case in which the defendants falsely represented to a manufacturer that goods would remain in the United States
How later courts described this case
- holding that the right to control future disposition of goods sold was not a property right within the meaning of the wire fraud statute in a case in which the defendants falsely represented to a manufacturer that goods would remain in the United States
- noting that the victim man- ufacturers were not “defrauded of ‘property’ within the meaning of the [wire fraud] statute” because they “received the full sale price for their products” and therefore “clearly suffered no monetary loss”
- declining to recognize as property a seller's right to control "the destination of [its] products after sale," even though such a right would, by hypothesis, be exclusive to the seller and potentially economically valuable
- distinguishing a manufacturer’s property interest in confidential information from any interest the manufacturer might have in a product’s ultimate destination
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Because the majority opinion and Judge Fernandez’s concurrence are entirely consistent, and each interprets the applicable law correctly, I join both.