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.
Software? How does this not apply to software? They say you're leasing the software, but it's a defacto sale.
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?
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.
They’ll need to go after individual contract signee’s for a breach of contract to get anything back. The refiller is faultless.