[DeltaZulu]

Under the first sale doctrine, when a copyright owner sells a lawfully made copy of its work, it loses the power to restrict the purchaser's right "to sell or otherwise dispose of . . . that copy." 17 U. S. C. §109(a).

Software? How does this not apply to software? They say you're leasing the software, but it's a defacto sale.

[hsrazorback1]

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.

[Doc91678]

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.

[Mr. Douglas]

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.

[zeugma]

Software? How does this not apply to software? They say you're leasing the software, but it's a defacto sale.

I have no idea how this can be treated any different. Of course, the U.S. legal system is a place where they can believe 5 contradictory things at the same time, and think themselves clever, so it's hardly surprising. It will be interesting to see if anyone is able to follow up on software, though it's generally held to be covered under copyright law which is quite different from patent law, though there are similarities.