Ah, if it's not buying with the intention to resell that's illegal, but the resale itself, it means nothing.
I just think it's weird that the US law handles the resale case. Like they think they have authority over the whole world.
The US supposedly loves private property. But this transitive application of trade restrictions sounds like complete disrespect of private property. (And honestly even just any trade restrictions in general…)
My question was significantly higher level than that. The United States exists to further the objectives of the United States. You made the statement 'The US govt must not be able to...'.
What does that statement mean given that (1) the United States is most certainly able to, (2) the United States merely looks after its own interests, and (3) there is no (earthly at least) authority which can actually judge the United states's actions in this case.
Thus, what does it mean to say '<insert country here> must not'? By what standard?
Every other nation has trade embargo's as well. And when they want to arrest someone in the US for violating those, the US will do just that. People are a little overly obsessed with the US being behind it.
Because the Computers are the property of HK company at that time, so the question is do US has any further rights on what is being done with them.
This being HP computers, it may be possible that they might even have been made in China/HK themselves.
What if it was used second hand computers, aren't their rightful owners free to dispose them at their will without deferment to any trade restrictions sanctioned by the country of their origin.
What does that statement mean?