[colejohnson66]

> Or maybe a first-sale doctrine that allows a single sale but doesn't allow further sales.

Nitpick: that’s the exact opposite of the “first sale doctrine”. The first sale doctrine says that, once I buy something, I can do whatever I want with the product. If I want to shoot bullets at a $1000 smartphone for YouTube views, Apple, Samsung, etc. can’t prevent me from doing so.

There are exceptions to this (EULAs and all that), but the general idea is that.

[pbhjpbhj]

Yes, that was confusing: 'The' first-sale doctrine is about exhaustion of the rights of an IPR holder though (as you correctly state); a consumer can resell because the creator of the IPR no longer has power over the goods.

My off-the-cuff proposal would be 'a' first-sale doctrine that would exhaust the rights of an IPR creator by preventing them from being transferred. To a [further] third party. This mirrors 'the' first-sale doctrine.

Of course 'a' first-sale doctrine is just a protocol related to a first transference - in the case you reference that's transference of goods to a consumer, in my proposal the transference was of IPR rights to a manufacturer/troll/company.