Posted on 05/30/2017 9:45:54 PM PDT by zeugma
I posted this, because it's a pretty big decision for those of us concerned about the scope-creep of patent and copyright law.
The bottom line is that Lexmark was attempting to sue a third party that was refilling empty toner cartridges, because Lexmark had patents on parts of the toner cartridge. The supreme Court essentially told them "No. Once you've sold the thing, it is no longer under your control." That's a good thing IMO, as it makes sense when compared to previous decisions concerning other physical property such as books and records. (The 'doctrine of first sale' is mentioned above). That means that once you've read a book, you can take it to a used bookstore and they can sell it to someone else, and the publisher can't do a thing about it, much to their dismay.
I understand that there is a suit ongoing right now with John Deer regarding the issue of owners and others being able to legally repair their own tractors. I believe this decision bodes ill for the John Deer. They may want to rethink their policies.
There are other, similar implications elsewhere in the computer world. HP, Lexmark, and other printer manufacturers have been screwing their customers (IMO) for years. This decision puts them on notice that they'll have a really hard time using patent law as a bludgeon against their customers.
This was a unanimous decision, though the leftists dissented in part. I haven't read their comments and probably won't because I doubt there will be anything in their comments based on fact or the law. I'm not interested in their whacked out emotional states. Goresuch did not participate. Most likely because he was not present for oral arguments on this case. Given how the case was decided, his input wasn't really needed in any case.
This was a unanimous decision, though the leftists dissented in part. I haven’t read their comments and probably won’t because I doubt there will be anything in their comments based on fact or the law. I’m not interested in their whacked out emotional states.
...
LOL! That’s funny because it’s true.
Interesting and I think it is a good decision. The notion of “first sale” protects the intellectual property investment made by the inventor, just like the book example, so fairness is provided. Lexmark could probably have made as much money by setting up an equitable open market toner cartridge refurbishment program than by trying to stretch patent law to give them a monopoly (especially under such restrictive terms).
Thanks for posting. I expect Apple’s attorneys are glad it came out this way. Qualcomm won’t like it nearly as much!
Great place to buy refill ink that lasts like the original at more then half off the price of the OEM versions.
http://www.4inkjets.com
Good post. I surmise that the decision also bodes ill for the patent over reach by Monsanto and other seed producers.
You may only lease the opinion, subject to the n-page EULA...
Software? How does this not apply to software? They say you're leasing the software, but it's a defacto sale.
I immediately thought of this when I saw the decision. Software companies have long hid behind copyright laws while the first sale doctrine has been all but ignored. Don’t think this decision doesn’t have some attorneys up late.
But LexMark does not manufacture it’s engines. The are actually manufactured by Canon USA Inc. It’s an OEM. The cartridges for those engines are also manufactured by Canon.
Could this principle be used to break the Home Owner Association scam on the ownership of real estate.
Reading the article I was wondering if it would have any impact on the John Deere situation.
How does this fit with copyright laws and books, magazines, newspapers sold?
I have an Epson Artisan 837 printer. It does fantastic photos, edge to edge. The main reason I bought it, however, is that I can print CD’s.
A full package of LOW CAPACITY ink cartridges is roughly $80. A couple of years ago I took a chance on refilled cartridges on amazon. The results were amazing. Absolutely no difference.
Now I get TWO sets of cartridges, the black being high capacity, for $20.
The high price of ink used to be a major issue for me. ThanksI don’t even think about the cost of ink any more.
See my post 15. For me it’s all amazon. And I’ve tried two brands with the same result. And it’s not half off. It’s more like 80% off.
Software, as commonly distributed nowadays, is not a physical item. You are leasing the right to use it. You can’t copy it legally, whether you lease or buy.
If these “refilling” companies were buying one cartridge and making physical copies, they would be at the losing end of this one.
There are other differences as well. e.g. software does not “run out” as you use it.
How does this fit with copyright laws and books, magazines, newspapers sold?
Where Lexmark WOULD have a case is if the actual ink is protected. I don’t think it is. Frankly, buying and refilling used cartridges is the equivalent of buying and refurbishing used cars.
Lexmark doesn’t even sell printers anymore. At least I haven’t seen them in Staples, Best Buy or Office Depot. Good printers when they were sold...
——Once you’ve sold the thing, it is no longer under your control.——
Then why is it that placing the DVD of a movie that you purchased on the internet in full view of the world is a violation? Why is copyright different than patent law? When you buy the DVD why doesn’t copyright extinguish?
I think that this has been the view of Taiwan for years and years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.