There's a certain obviousness to this decision. Indeed it's hard to read the rest of the opinion after it explains what it is to exhaust patent rights in the fi

There's a certain obviousness to this decision. Indeed it's hard to read the rest of the opinion after it explains what it is to exhaust patent rights in the first paragraph. There's plenty of precedent, indeed when you're quoting Coke, you're going back to the 17th century and his decision doesn't seem different from the opinion. This all begs the question how did this ham handed attempt to abuse patent rights even end up in court and then how did it get appealed to the Supreme Court and moreover why did the Supremes bother to hear it? Because it seems obvious at least to this NL and obvious stuff usually isn't on their docket.