Slashdot Mirror
Refilling Ink Cartridges Now a Crime?
Eric Smith writes "The Ninth Circuit has created box-wrap patent licenses. Now the label on the box that says "single use only" is given force of law, and if you refill the cartridge you are liable for patent infringement."
So can I still fill up used bottled water bottles with my tap water if it is labled '1 liter'?
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
This has existed with software for ages--you cannot dissassemble or do basically anything to the software except what it says you can. It was only a matter of time before this was extended to physical objects.
I mean, who ever listens to those "one use only" instructions? Those condoms can last a long time.
"you're suddenly a patent infringer. More importantly, Lexmark can sue cartridge remanufacturers for "inducing" patent infringement by making and selling refills."
How is that patent infringement? Does that cover if I, personally, refill my cartridge at home rather than buying one someone else refilled?
I'm afraid this one is probably going to stick, too. Remember seeing anything like "It is illegal to use this product inconsistent with its labelling" on those canned air warnings?
I mean, so I do this and then I use the ink and throw away the old cartridge . . . so what?
I mean, even if I am committing a crime, how can they find out? I don't see how this makes any bit of difference one way or the other.
"So can I still fill up used bottled water bottles with my tap water if it is labled '1 liter'?"
Sure, but don't you dare try to put a quart in there!
So violating the warrantry is a crime now? I guess the death penalty will be applied for opening a shrink wrap box without reading the EULA inside the box.
...ink cartridges refill patent laws!1!
About time - /. was so slow on this one, I was considering posting an article of my own.
Anyway, you can read the EFF's view here
I feel that if I see a better value in a product, I will tend to buy it. If I can reuse a product, the product has more value. Therefore, if this policy will prevent me from refilling a certain brand of ink cartridge, I will simply buy a different brand.
Getting down to ownership; if I buy something, I guess it's not really mine, eh? Stop me.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Now it isn't long before your UPS/Fedex/DHL boxes come with tape stating 1 time use. Gone the days of using those boxes to send out other packages or store crap lying around your house.
where it is a crime to save the environment. It is sad to realize, though, who is really responsible for that outrageous law: The People, that's who. I am just disgusted.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
The best way to fight back is to forget about purchasing printers that uses cartridges, use laser printers. Although the initial cost is higher, it is much cheaper in the long run. See the following article for cost figures.
r ticle.php/3521141
http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/testdrive/a
yes! and stop recycling too! you refilling that Coke bottle with RC Cola was not its original intent. we want to create as much waste as possible. i see why they wouldnt want you to do this, but come on!. and as for infringment, i cant imagine someone is in a factory with needles pumping ink in, so they arent infringing on that patent of filling in. just another thing in life that is extremely unnecessary.
I'm interested in learning how the respective cartridge vendors finds out who is refilling their cartridges (and who isn't). I know some of the google printer hacks on "Johnny's site" are good, but not that good
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody. Bill Cosby (1937 - )
The solution here, at least until they strip away all private ownership, is to stop buying printers whos costs are subsidized by their ink cartriges. Go out and pay 400 dollars for a laser printer, buy 60 dollar toner carts that last 10 times as long as your 40 dollar ink carts, and be happy.
Forget it. Damnit, where's the "unpost" button? Or the "edit post"? Or even the "correct your mistake without hitting the post rate limit" one?
Apparently the Ninth Circuit thinks that the labelling "single use only" on the box is a legally binding contract, and thus the sale of the product to a consumer is not an "unrestricted sale".
If this is upheld, we can expect that soon all patent holders will be asserting all sorts of control over consumer products that they currently cannot. For instance, when you buy a new cell phone, it might have a label on the box stating that it is only for use with headsets from the same manufacturer. Up until now they've only been able to try to lock you in by putting a proprietary connector on the phone, and that only works until other manufacturers start producing headsets or adapters with that connector, but under the box-wrap precedent they may be able to use force of law to keep you from using an Ericsson headset with a Nokia phone.
Sounds like we're going back to the days of "It's a crime to remove this tag off of your mattress."
My HP inkjet printer died 2 weeks ago. I am replacing with color laser.
Ah, Lexmark is at it again... Gotta love that company - maybe next they'll just send out beefy guys with baseball bats to break the kneecaps of anyone who sells refilled cartridges...
I'll never buy their products anyway, and I'll make sure that everyone I know is well-informed about their business practises...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
As long as the competition don't follow suit then this decision by Lexmark might turn out to be beneficial to the likes of HP and so on.
And no, I couldn't give a shit what my karma is.
Conservatives have been screaming for about a decade about hot the 9th circuit is insane.
Now that one of their decisions will effect soccer moms and art students, maybe something will be done about it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
And another one for the *garbage* America...
Yes... dump everything to the trash can... mayhappen one day you will wake on a dumpster... and realize yes... grabage is good!
(In EU, this "law" - if it was applicable - is per-si not valid, because it incentives the use of new items instead of recycling)
(In the USA, this "law" is very dubious one, because when you buy a thing you own a thing.)
It's not as cut and dry as the story title and summary implies.
Lexmark discounts certain cartridges with the understanding that the user will return the spent cartridges to Lexmark. Lexmark recycles the cartridges and sells them again. Lexmark got their panties in a bunch because another company was taking their prebated cartridges and recycling them, causing Lexmark to lose money. Lexmark isn't being quite as evil as they are made out to be, in this case.
That being said, Lexmark makes my pants sad.
I assume this will effect the hacked disposable digital cameras and camcorders?
"We were half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold."
-- Hunter S. Tolkien
Sure, but what if it is labelled "spring water"? Then if the manufacturer holds any patents on the product (which may or may not be related to the type of water in it), they can claim that your refilling the bottle with tap water infringes their patent because you violated the box-wrap license.
imagine how many of those cartridges i'd have to buy to print a 30 page report!
So basically at some point in time we can expect the car dealerships to enforce a policy that you are only allowed to use Ford brand oil in your car? Or that only they can change the oil for $75 a pop? or that you are only allowed to use manufacturer certified parts which may or may not be marked up 100%? Things are just continuing to go down hill and with George Bush being allowed to put another justice on the Supreme Court we're as good as screwed untill the next presidential elections.
with this article and the one shortly before it on the BD rom crap, I think slashdot needs a new section on "property rights erosion" or a better title "the corporations own YOU dept".
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
If the cartridge was not my property, I could understand this ruling. It's their property and I'm only borrowing it. However, in this case, It's my property. If I choose to transfer a liquid that I own from a container that I own into another container that I own, that's nobody's business but mine. But if I destroy my printer because my refilled cartridge is not "up to specs," then it's also my fault.
Isn't this a monopolistic or ogopolistic practice which is suppose to be illegal? Isn't this ruining competition by putting up artificial barriers-of-entry for the printing cartridge market? If some smart company decides to make ink refills, that increases competition which provides us end-user consumers more choices, better quality, and lower prices.
Bah, I've already lost all hope for the U.S. from top to bottom. Watch the re-release of THX-1138. That's what we've become. "Buy, consume, buy more, consume more, take your drugs, beware of an interval-overdose."
How exactly does refilling a cartridge infringe on Lexmark's patents? Do they have a patent on refilling ink cartridges? Perhaps they have a patent on "Saving money by not paying exorbitant fees to Lexmark every time your ink runs low"?
The 9th Circuit could have just been honest and said that "refilling ink cartridges infringes on Lexmark's right to make money off you and we clearly can't have that now, can we".
Listen, citizens - in case this somehow escaped you - anything that deprives private business from accruing money is and should be criminalized. This includes sharing books, sharing information, discussing movies or letting someone else listen to your radio or watch your television.
.wait no... feed a man a melon and take his bananas...
Any of you who behave in opposition to this way of thinking are terrorists and clearly hate America. You are either with us (corporate America) or you're against us. You evil doers will not do us.. uh.. out. There's a saying back where I come from. Take a man's fish and give him... er... uh.. . Give a man your banana and reap his fis... er..
Good night and God bless.
Why do corporations feel that they are entitled to profits and cozy government protection instead of having to compete in the marketplace?
I consider this a version of welfare.
it looks like the remanufactures could come up with an alternative printer/cartidge, selling them at much more reasonable prices, and still make a nice profit. Do the other manufactures have a Microsoft-type thing going that keeps other people out of the market, or are their products so good that it makes it too high an entry barrior into the market.
I know a lot of these manufactures make most of their money selling the cartidges...but I actually way the cost of refills into my printer purchases, and if I saw a reasonably priced printer with a reasonable cartridge replacement/refill policy, that is the one I would spend my hard earned money on.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
So Lexmark patented the single use only action?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
You know, when you can buy a low end color laser printer for around 600 dollars, whose toner lasts much longer than the inks in inkjet printers, it's a wonder people aren't looking for alternatives. Laser is faster, and soon to be cheaper!
Still, why not buy the ink carts that are meant to be refilled? They are easy to find for all major printer brands, although they do allegedly void your warranty. I wonder why somebody doesn't sell their own refillable ink carts with their printers. You get both benefits: a warranty, and cheaper ink.
Will patent owners exploit this decision as an opportunity to impose over-reaching restrictions on formerly permitted post-sale uses, repairs, modifications, and resale? Will consumers soon confront "single use only, not for resale" notices on more and more products? Will innovators stumble over labels announcing "modifications prohibited"?
/.'ers rabbling over something that may or may not ever have an impact on them than anything else? Rather than getting all upset and rabbling about it, how about we look at the bigger picture of what is going on around here...what is the real effect this is going to have on us?
Obviously, we can't know yet. But the danger is there.
---
So, in actuality, we dont really know if the companies/corporations in the printer/ink business are going to attempt to use this to go after people. Additionally, how would they enforce this? I dont think they're going to be looking for the individual joe blows who refill their own ink cartridges on this...so who/what is the real target with this new law? It seems to me like this is more of an attempt by the editors to get
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
Saving sig aborted.
Reason: Your subject looks too much like ascii art
They'll get my catridge refiller when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
From the ruling:
There is a special agreement between Lexmark and the consumer to purchase at a lower price, and in order to get that price, you need to send the cartridge back to Lexmark. Also, Lexmark was sued by ACRA, the Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association, who thought this was unfair.
Personally I think it's a perfectly valid agreement and if I could save $30 on a $100 toner cartridge, I'd do it. Basically, Lexmark is reducing the price of their cartridges to match the sleazeball toner remanufacturers. Have you ever gotten a call from a pushing inkjet/toner salesman? Those guys are some of the worst conmen alive.
I have one of your printers myself. I won't buy any more cartridges for it. I won't buy another Lexmark printer. I will actively recommend that our clients do not purchase any Lexmark products. That amounts to a hundred printers or so per year and the supplies to go with them. I will actively mention to retailers that carry your products why I will not purchase them. Is that clear enough for you. It's the least I can do.
If enough of us do the same, perhaps you'll get the picture. By the way, your printer isn't as good as those from HP.
My company leases a photocopier. The machine, toner, drum and servicing are provided "free", but we pay a nominal fee per copy.
I wouldn't be surprised if home users were forced into a similar agreement by printer manufacturers, except without the "free" machine, consumables and service. All backed up by Internet verification for our convenience, of course.
Argh.
Honey!, pull down the blinds. I gotta fill the ink cartridges and there's a suspicious car out front...it might be the cops!
Republicans are jackballs...there, I said it!
Comment from the "talkback" section of the article:
James on September 4, 2005 02:24 PM writes...
Those of you who are excoriating Lexmark and the Ninth Circuit have apparently NOT read the decision. (Isn't it a prerequisite to informed debate that you actually INFORM yourself before criticizing?)
The Ninth Circuit's opinion concerns Lexmark's "Prebate" program, in which customers are given a $30 discount on their printer cartridge in exchange for their agreement to return the used cartridge to Lexmark when they are done with it. That's an enforceable contract, plain and simple. Customers had the option of paying $30 more for a cartridge, without being obligated to send it back to Lexmark when they were finished with it.
The Ninth Circuit simply held that, in exchange for paying less for the cartridge, customers could be contractually bound to return it to Lexmark.
Now that you understand, tell me: is that so evil?
You folks might want to educate yourself on the concept of "freedom to contract."
Okay, this raises a question... If Lexmark only wants you to use your cartridge once, not refill, will they be doing the responsible thing and providing drop-off/return facilities so that Lexmark can get its cartridges back and refill them themselves (then charge the consumer full price again)?
The concept sucks at some levels (paying full price for refills) but yet the landfills will be happy and Lexmark will only look partially like bastards. Presently plenty of third-party recyclers exist, but by the one-use law they'd be put out of business.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
No one has said it's a crime to refill your printer cartridges. At most, it's a breech of contract between you and Lexmark.
If you read the court opinion, you'll see that the cartridges won't work unless Lexmark refills them because there's a lockout chip. So breeching this particular contract is going to be difficult anyway.
Lexmark is guilty of no more than offering their customers a bad deal.
Buy a laser printer instead.
That are illegal due to other reasons, ( mostly the anti-drug campaign ) not due to some lame 'patent infringement' excuse.
But, yes, in this corporate age it will stick.
We arent allowed to own anything in this 'new world' they are creating.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Seems the same principle could be applied to selling movies on dvd, e.g., with a label that says, "5 playings only."
Sure, that would conflict with existing right-of-first-sale protections. But... remember the days when you used to own, say, your empty printer-cartridges?
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
I think it's time to remove Lexmark from CUPS. It's clear they don't want to play nicely anymore, so I think it's only fair that from now on the Linux community will no longer support their printers. I know this is only a token gesture, and will likely not hurt their bottom line, but I think we need to make it clear that this sort of behavior is not appreciated and should have consequences.
Ok, here's some common sense that maybe even the courts will have to listen to. When you buy something, a physical product, like an XBox it is now your property. There may be patents covering the devices inside the device, there may be copyrights, trademarks, etc. but at the end of the day it's my hunk of atoms NOT the original companies. No amount of shrink wrap licensing binds me to do what I want with it. However if I do something thats not within what the manufacturer wants me to be doing with it they are welcome to cancel my warranty, and refuse to take liability for say me running 6 million volts of electricity through a paperclip, but thats just my perogative, they can't stop me from doing that. So thats where it all stands in terms of that.
the 9th circuit court in the case has ruled differently than what the article header here implies. Go, read it.
It should be simple. You buy it, you own it. Period. If you that means you want to smash it in with a sledgehammer, go right ahead. It's yours! If you want to mess around with the electronics inside, go right ahead. If you want to add liquid to it, whether it's supposed to be there or not, no one can stop you.
Whatever happened to the sensible days? How is this supposed to be enforced anyway? Does this give the ink cartridge company the right to spy on me in my own home so as to make sure I'm not *gasp* refilling their cartridges?!
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
http://www.lasermonks.com/
That the DMCA will fall into play if you merely tell someone how to refill their cart.
And yes, it still covers if you do it at home, in your basement where no one else knows but you and your dog. Patent infringement doesnt require you to profit. ( now catching you, if only you and your dog knows, is another issue. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I maintain the website for a non-profit scholarship foundation that runs a lean operation. One of their money-raising initiatives is to collect depleted printer cartridges and exchange them with Greenfund for cash. I guess Greenfund will be out of business now (except for the cell-phone part of their endeavors), and my scholarship organization will have to find another source of $$. Bake sales and car washes, here we come. Not to mention the fact that preventing the recycling of cartridges and other recyclelables means bigger landfills and more wasted resources.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Imagine it. Pay-per-boot Windows. Now you have no excuse not to pay for it if you want to use it. Why pay $500 now when you can pay $5 per reboot? Lets take it a bit furthur down the slippery slope. "You may only use Sony products on your PS4. If you use anything else, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This includes cables, TVs, a desk stand, sound systems, accessories, software, hardware, and anything else that might be used in conjuction with your Playstation 4. This is to ensure that you have no problems and are satisfied with your product."
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
According to the Ninth Circuit ruling [PDF] this week in ACRA v. Lexmark, opening the package means you agree to Lexmark's wishes.
So it's not a crime if my wife opens the package, use the cartridge, then give it to me, so that I can have it refilled and use it on my printer.
In this era of population explosion, global resource exploitation, potential global warming, etc., it is insanity to intentionally dictate that easily re-used items be turned into "single-use" consumables that thus fill landfills on one end of the chain while consuming additional resources and energy for the manufacture of identical new items (and packaging, too) at the other end of the chain-- all when the existing item(s)are perfectly fine and completely functional.
This is the insanity of capitalism: we are running out of oil; we are filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses as the result of our energy use; we are clear-cutting; we are running out of easily habitable (without extra energy consumption for climate management, water movement, etc.) space; and yet the only measure with which we as a society are concerned is the measure of capital and the individual "freedom" to acquire it (by and large a lie propagated by those who hold it-- how many billionaries are in your family?), even as we consume ourselves into a planetary grave.
It's not just conceptually consumable items like ink cartridges that could easily be re-used; it's even big-ticket items like cell phones and automobiles--millions of them end up in landfills each year while they're still perfectly good, either because they're artificially locked/behavior-controlled or because manufacturers refuse to continue to support them so that they can sell new models to individuals who demand them in part after succumbing to the forces of marketplace psychology in advertising and in part because of the real social (and thus capital) benefits that such appearances (i.e. a new auto; a new cell phone) provide as a result of the marketplace.
The "marketplace" is merely the aggregate of individual greed and it mechanistically ignores problems that any single individual feels to be "bigger than themself" and their own desires. If you let the "marketplace" dictate environmental and social policy, you are asking for a system that (like its component individuals) completely ignores the realities of the very survival of our species in favor of giving everyone a better-tasting cola in the run-up to the planetary apocalypse.
It is time to stop capitalism and corporatism now.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
"The People"?!?!? come on, this has nothing to do with "The People". this is the doing of large corporations that don't care about the environment and just worry about the cut in their profits from refilling.
Large corporations do not pass laws. Large corporations do not vote. The People are those who choose representatives to act in their interests and they are responsible for their own choices, not any corporations with no right to vote.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
If you remove that tag you will PAY!
The world's smartest bug zapper www.zapstats.com/kickstarter
I'm not sure there's anything to see here folks. TFA doesn't mention what seems to be a crucial fact: Lexmark offers consumers a choice. They can buy the cartridge at the regular price without any restrictions on what they do with it or they can buy it at a discounted price, in return for which they agree to return the cartridge to Lexmark. The boxes are marked differently. There are "prebate" boxes, which carry a notice explaining that these cartridges are to be returned to Lexmark, and there are "regular" boxes.
It seems to me that this is perfectly fair, so long as the purchaser knows what the deal is up front. Its clear that he or she has a choice as to whether or not to accept the deal since Lexmark is offering both arrangments. You can't say that Lexmark is using monopoly power to force people to buy its products whether they like the contract or not if it explictly offers two different deals. It's possible, of course, that Lexmark or the dealers that sell its products are not up front about the two deals, but the Ninth Circuit, which is known, generally, for its "left-wing" slant and is hardly anti-consumer, didn't find evidence of that. Here's the decision Am I missing something?
Well, obviously, no one has bothered to actually read the decision, just the completely inaccurate write-ups about it.
The case is not about not being able to refill your ink cartridge, but about the fact that customers were given an option of a cheaper cartridge, with the contractual agreement that, in compensation for the lower price, they would return the cartridge to Lexmark after a single use. Customers had a choice to agree to the contract or not. They could have bought the same exact ink cartridge for a higher price, and not been under any obligation to return it or not refill it.
Me, personally, I'll never own a Lexmark product, ever, and neither will the company I work for as long as I can help it, thanks to the crap they've pulled in the past. Having said that, in this particular case, I am on their side. Why should a consumer get a benefit, and then complain that they have to actually uphold their end of the deal that gave them the benefit?
Anyway, the article linked, and the initial post, really have absolutely no bearing on the actual facts. Typical slashdot.
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
so a private company feels it needs to do this? You can't stop them, really, it's freedome. However you don't have to buy their products. People say: what if everyone starts doing this? Great then, I will start producing the kind of cartridges without this license agreement.
You can't handle the truth.
It is sad to realize, though, who is really responsible for that outrageous law: The People
Not necessarily. In a plurality election system, the Duverger effect generally results in a steady state where no more than two parties will dominate politics, which leads to tactical voting on grounds that for example, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. If there are only two parties, and the pharmaceutical industry manages to "contribute" stronger patent restrictions into both parties' platforms, then what can We The People do about it?
Your next printer will vigorously defend itself from your unwelcome advances.
Don't worry, the TASER is harmless.
i seriously dont care what the manufacturer puts on their cartridge. its a disgusting waste of materials if they expect the buyer to trash can the cartridge after use.
if the corporations are to enforce this they must refund the cartridge once used and offer a replacement.
for what it's worth you can go to a toner store, purchase the cheapest toner you like, remove the end caps and refil your expensive one, for those who were not aware (wear a protective face mask, toner is harmful).
Why UNIX?
NO IP!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Well if everyone buys a different brand that doesn't use a patent, then the compan(y/ies) that use the patent will go out of buisness.
I know what you meant tho...
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
Build your own cartrigde and refill it as you wish.
You will need some paper, glue and scissors to construct box, some epoxyde impregnation to make it liquid-proof, and some cotton and piece of cloth to stuff it. And ink, of course.
Dont forget to print a copyright notice on it while you made a paper cut design in your favourite vector graphics editor.
There you are, staring at me again.
Sounds like it is time for a Boston ink cartridge party. Let's get all those used lexmark ink cartridges and march down to the harbor and throw them in in protest!
If and when a company actually tries to enforce such a "contract" on an end user the news will make most consumers go out and buy another vendors product. This could put the company trying to enforce such a "contract" out of business. At least we can all hope!
As long as all vendors don't adopt such a practice there will be alternatives and it will become a selling point for those that don't engage in this practice. This could open up a number of business opportunites in those markets where some vendors try this tactic.
Christ, does *every* Slashdot headline have to be misleading and sesationalistic?
To answer the question in the headline: No, it's not illegal to refill your Lexmark ink cartridges. What's illegal is for a company to buy up empty "one-use" cartridges, fill them back up, and resell them.
Whether it was warranted for the court to uphold this or not, the decision does not mean what the Slashdot editors would like you to believe.
Slashdot: News for the Gullible. Stuff that insults your intelligence.
Cars that can only be filled up by the dealer?
The 9th circuit is made up of some of the wackiest judges around, and has the highest reversal rate when brought before the supreme court. Hopefully this will be one of thoses.
The sell toner cartriges for one price.
The they offer you a deal, return the cartrige and you can have it for a lower price.
If I don't want to be contractually obligated to return the cartrige, I can just buy it at the regular price.
If I do accept money (in the form of a discount) in exchange for returning the cartrige and I don't, I should be held accountable.
This is much less objectionable than Lexmark's other tactics.
Is it part of the slippery slope to click through licenses, yes. But most click through and shrinkwrapped licenses do not offer monetary compensation for the rights they take away. Lexmark offered a choice, compensation and limited rights or no compensation (and frankly uncertain rights).
The cartridges in question are DISCOUNTED so that you return them to lexmark. You have the option of buying a NON-MARKED cartridge which is more expensive that you are free to do with as you please. If the option to buy the full-price cartridge didn't exist, this opinion might have gone differently -- but the contract with Lexmark is valid because they're giving consideration. (Lexmark is reducing the price of the cartridge in exchange for specific performance -- the return of that cartridge to lexmark.)
This lawsuit is a bunch of COMMERCIAL cartridge-refilling companies suing lexmark -- not an end user.
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
Yes, only the original manufacturer is allowed to fill the bottle labeled "spring water" with tap water.
But if you pay a premium ontop of the regural price that same ball can now be used for table tennis or filled with explosisves for terrorist uses.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I don't think "Spring Water" will be such an issue as "Filtered Water". Patent your filtration process and then you might have something.
You can't patent a spring but I suppose you could patent the harvesting method.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
Lexmark discounts certain cartridges with the understanding that the user will return the spent cartridges to Lexmark.
If this is true, it appears that this "prebate" program is more of a rental than anything else. If this works, then why can't publishers of copyrighted works kill the public domain the same way, by requiring purchasers of copies or phonorecords of a work to return the copy or phonorecord to the publisher after the fiftieth year?
Where will this "you don't own what you've bought" system end? Will it get to the point where OEMs like Microsoft can force manufacturers to have a shrinkwrap license, so that Windows may never be removed from these systems?
The deeper we get into nonsense and stupidity of those legal limitations the sooner something will be done about that. Remember, to have a chance of changing that all those restrictions have to become a nuisance for the average American.
" It's not as cut and dry as the story title and summary implies."
It is you know, the judge clearly thinks its a good idea for Lexmark to be able to refill its own cartridges, but the only way the judge could do it was to accept that the shrink wrap EULA is valid - throwing out doctrine of first sale. That judgement can't stand because anyone could put anything they want in those EULAs disclaiming any buyer right, creating super IP rights and god knows what other horrors.
On the other hand if the judge had said it wasn't valid, Lexmark could have simply offered the $30 refund on the NEXT cartridge purchase if you have a voucher for refilling your LAST cartridge. So there was an easy way for Lexmark to fix it without screwing over every consumer on the planet.
This is a total disaster in terms of consumer rights.
It has to be the worst form of intellectual dishonesty to post a story that is as misleading and erroneous as this. If makes Fox news look 'Fair and Balanced' by comparison.
That the DMCA will fall into play if you merely tell someone how to refill their cart.
Lexmark already lost their DMCA case... that's why they moved on to patents, where they apparently won. (that parts in TFA)
Only if you recycle the original water.
hmm, maybe not. But if it was labeled '1 litre' you might be able to :-)
Every time I read something like this I'm more and more glad that I don't live in the U.S.
sigaar
i wonder if next thing in future that you cant refill the bottle of water because of 'water' license? :)
AC wrote: "Voting for the good instead of the lesser evil may be a good start."
But this good start in itself needs a good start. How can the good get the word out to TV-watching Americans? I myself am a card-carryin' Libertarian, but given that I can't find a job, I can't afford to donate much more money to the Party.
How is it intellectually dishonest? Your post doesn't explain, which ironically, is just as dishonest as you claim the story to be.
Appeal, there is no one that can be this stupid, the constitution was to "promote the general Welfare" not provide somce company a cheap win in court.
I bet they put the "single use only" on there so some idiot didn't sue them for trying to use it once it was empty thinking that was the only one that they ever will need. Actually doesn't single use mean I can only use it once for one sheet? It's too bad they didn't put the words "common sense" in the constitution otherwise I could hit myself for that comment.
I'm confident I can point out something retarded about your country as well.
As long as the competition don't follow suitthen this decision by Lexmark might turn out to be beneficial to the likes of HP and so on.
What good reason does Hewlett-Packard have not to follow suit given that eliminating the remanufactured competition could be a cash cow? That's part of why I bought a printer from a manufacturer that already sells affordable ink refills for its own printers: Canon.
refilling cartrages is not just about saving money its environmetal issues too. personally i belive there should be a printer that just takes ink!
Rob http://scullyshouse.tblog.com
How is this going to work? When the cops show up to make sure you still have the tag on your matress they'll also inspect your printer cartridges to make sure they haven't been refilled?
Every time something crazy comes out such as this I pray for more of the same.
The only way deep change will come about is when people are told that they can't modify their cars with non-GM parts, when people are told that they can only wear nike shoes with nike pants, when people are prohibited from buying an oral B tooth brush with some Crest toothpaste unless they sign a contract where they promises not to use the 2 products together.
Let the crazy come cause the crazy can't stay, they can just hassle us for a while.
I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
Pity the nearest significant body of water seems to be Lake Erie.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
We have a problem here with two overlapping rules: not allowing other companies to manufacture ink cartridges for your printer, and not allowing you to refill the cartridges your manufacturer sells. I don't think either should be legal, but they're particularly dangerous together: If the policy is written on the ink cartridge refill, and your decision about which cartridges you can buy is made (unbeknownst to you) when you buy the printer, then you won't even find out about the policy until long after you've made your choice.
...
At a start, I would find your observation more comforting if the printer had to come with a consumer-obvious label like, "Installing refill cartridges that are not made by Lexmark, or manually refilling your Lexmark cartridges, constitutes a violation of blah blah blah." At that point, we can let the free market do its work
What exactly is single use?
If I refill it, have I somehow used it twice? Not really, as using it is defined as the moment you either open it or start printing with it. At that point, you have started using it. As far as I'm concerned, refilling it is part of the cart's 'single' life, and when I finish using it is when I - as the user - discard it, regardless of refills.
Goodness knows how you'd quantify that refilling it with ink constitutes a 'second life', that's just nuts!
Someone really should go weld the judge's gas tanks closed and put a sticker on them that says "sorry, but this is a one time use vehicle. refueling is not allowed". Maybe that'd drive the point home.
Jeremy Logan's Website.
Given enough time, the single use restriction will be posted on our vehicle gas tanks... Imagine that, new car after every tank, at least you will be familiar with the new car smell...
This prompted me to take a look at the newer color laser printers available from a cost and quality comparision with inkjets.
Just happened to find a very recent article on Tom's Hardware dealing with this exact issue. Interesting reading.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
I get my Epson C60 cartridges for $5.95 for black, $6.95 for color. They last as long as the Epson ones as far as I can tell. No problems with them at all, so far. Even if they didn't, paying one-sixth the price that Epson charges would be a deal.
Plus, after you've bought a couple, you get a ten percent off coupon emailed to you regularly. The last one I got was for 15%.
Obviously this ruling is an attempt by the printer companies to deal with the Asian undercutters who are producing cheaper, equally good cartridges. If your whole business model is to sell cheap printers and expensive ink cartridges, your business model looks shakey if anyone can make and sell the same cartridges for one-sixth your price.
This ruling was about refills, but you can bet the printer companies are working toward outlawing independently manufactured cartridges as well. The next generation of printers will not allow you to install any other cartridge but theirs, count on it. Of course, someone will figure out how to beat that, so the printer companies will turn to Congress.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
No.
Slashdot, the Fox News of Patents, has vaguely summarized a short article and omitted details that would significantly diminish the outlandish headline.
You can infinge every patent in the world so long as you do it for your own purposes. However, you cannot do it for business. There's nothing in the article OR the licensing agreement that describes what you can or cannot do with the printer cartridge for personal use. Be creative.
This judgement says that you cannot engage in the business of refilling "one use only" cartridges, which apparently includes selling your used cartridges back to a refilling company. I personally find that bizarre, because you could easily "sell your junk" to a third party, who "sells his filtered junk" to a cartridge refilling company, and enforcing this judgement would be nigh impossible. Regardless, this has nothing to do with how you use or refill your printer cartridges - for personal use.
"The Ninth Circuit has created box-wrap patent licenses. Now the label on the box that says "single use only" is given force of law, and if you refill the cartridge you are liable for patent infringement."
Which bit is misleading? The judge said the EULA on a prebate cartridge was valid and was used to grant usage to a patented invention. The EULA could say "single use only" and it would have legal weight behind it!
Even the heading is not far fetched:
"Refilling Ink Cartridges Now a Crime?"
The EU Commission is currently suggesting wilful infringment of any IP right (includes patents) should be criminalized, if they get away with that, its only a matter of time before the USA 'harmonizes' with the EU.
Imagine it, you don't ever read those EULAs yet the day when it is a crime to disobey them is not far off.
Just choose to NOT buy them AND loudly let the clerks know EXACTLY what to look for. It WILL get up the chain of command. Then let the stores choke on them -- can't GIVE them away kind of deal. On the other hand, BUY the ones that WILL allow you to do this. If anyone gives you a hard time, tell them it's an environmental issue and the "politlical correctness aura" will protect you.
But most importantly, understand that you and I aren't the real targets. The companies that make the refill kits/refill the cartridges are the targets.
Getting Walmart to "get it" is not the problem. Getting my younger sister and my 76 year old dad to understand this idea will be the tough part.
Lou
As stated above, this doesn't mean that it's illegal to reuse the cartridge. It's only stating that Lexmark's program isn't deceptive or unfair.
In other words, it's ok for Lexmark to offer a prebate.
Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
By not purchasing Lexmart junk? Makes sense to me.
"The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
... on the camel's back, as the US slowly sinks into patent hell while the rest of the world continues to progress unfettered by this nonsense.
foo
once the product is sold to you, it belongs solely to you and no one else.
EULA = abomination. period.
to say with a straight face that the manufacturer/vendor/company/merchant has ANY say whatsoever after the transaction has taken place, is looking to get bitchslapped across the face for being a propogandized zombie.
this is low down dishonest, unethical and criminal commerce.
if you like the jail world you're living in, i'm truly happy for you. i only wish the people who have woken up could take a little of what you're smoking. but alas, we now have a responsibility to lead moral and ethical lives. that includes all things, from the micro to the macro.
so no, we won't "get over it". this is OUR fuc*ing world! we're coming to take it back from the real thieves.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Maybe they should stop doing that.
What is the law on milk jugs?
I know of a few places that still offer milk in glass bottles. It costs a little more to buy the milk in a glass bottle but they offer a discount if you bring the bottle back to the store making the end cost being roughly equal to that of buying milk in plastic jugs. Near as i'm aware I'm under no legal or moral obligation to return the milk bottle... after all I bought it. But returning it will reduce my cost in milk to about $2.00/gal rather than $4.00/gal.
Needless to say this business model only works when the store is near enough to the distribution center or diary to keep the return costs minimal... otherwise it's generally more cost effective to offer milk in a disposable carton or jug making the glass bottle an oddity.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
1) The terms of Lexmark's contract - those "prebate" terms on the outside of the box - actually preclude only remanufacturing by anyone other than Lexmark (according to the court's analysis of Lexmark's brief). That's what "you agree to return the used cartridge only to Lexmark" means. Other uses, like filling it up oneself, may or may not be forbidden by that contract language. Generally, the Uniform Commercial Code interprets ambiguities in the consumer's favor, but YMMV.
2) Enforceablity of the contract is predicated on the ability of a patent-holder to legally restrict secondary uses by contract. That's Mallinckrodt, the Fed. Circuit decision the EFF urged the court to ignore. Lexmark's remedy for breach of the terms on the box lies in contract, not in patent infringement.
3) As much as I don't like this kind of sales strategy, I'm not sure why folks think buyers shouldn't be restricted to the terms they can read on the box. Those terms are an agreement between Lexmark and the buyer, and if the buyer doesn't like them, s/he doesn't have to buy. That's what freedom to/of contract is all about - don't like their terms, don't buy Lexmark products. Without any antitrust considerations - which I'm not aware of here - where is the rationale for telling Lexmark what it can and cannot offer in its contract terms?
So donate regularly to the EFF so they can take up your case for you.
I do.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
What have I been telling you people for at least the last ten years? Why haven't you been paying attention?
To the apologists who claim that a contract is created between Lexmark and the purchaser, I ask: Where is the informed disclosure? Where is the manifestation of informed assent? Where are the signed copies of the "contract"?
The reason retail markets are so valuable is because a regular set of rules that is common to all states governs how transactions in the market take place. This regularity is what enables an accelerated transfer of goods and services, which lets money flow around the economy that much faster, benefiting everyone. If you want special terms or conditions you, by definition, are not trading in a retail market. For you to sell your goods in a retail venue is therefore, at best, misleading ("bait-and-switch," anyone?).
If you want special terms and conditions, get a signed contract. Oh, that's too much trouble? Well, tough shit. And if you try sneaking a contract in under the radar, well, that doesn't prove you have any kind of rights or moral authority, all it proves is you're sneaky.
This is a crap decision, following on twenty years of previous crap decisions (ProCD vs. Zeidenberg being but one of them).
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I'm not a lawyer, but I am a law student.
The 9th circuit decisions are some of the most overturned in the history of our nation. Seriously, the judges appointed there are completely out of touch with reality, and this will likely be another case that bites it. I wouldn't worry.
It *MAY*, however, be applicable to companies that are in the business of refilling used ink cartridges and reselling them. But patent law cannot be made to prohibit you from refilling your own cartridges. Ever.
The DMCA on the other hand... well, who knows? But that's copyright, not patents.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I appreciate the amount of work that is involved in keeping Slashdot populated with headlines, but it does no one good to manipulate the headlines so badly. Click Preferences/HomePage and uncheck ScuttleMonkey for posting misleading headlines... I just did, along with Zonk.
This blurb is completely misleading. Lexmark is not enforcing this 'contract' on anyone. The suit in question is because a third party manufacturer is trying to claim Lexmark is being misleading and unfair in implementing this policy.
But, ignoring the actual contents of this article to discuss the bigger issue... This is just another case of shrink-wrap licensing. Take the box home and don't open it, BURN IT. I am sure the cartridge will be none the worse for wear and completely usable.
From the actual decision (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ACRA_v_Lexmark/ACR A_v_Lexmark_9th_circuit_ruling.pdf), "The key issue here is whether Lexmark misleads consumers and engages in unfair competition when it advertises cartridges for sale at a reduced price but with restrictions on their use."
The issue here is not whether you own the cartridge. The issue is whether you can return the cartridge to a third party manufacturer. Lexmark with this program is saying "We'll give you a rebate on ink if you promise to return the cartridge only to us." (Lexmark argued before the court that they do not require that the user return the cartridge to them when it is empty, only that if they give the empty cartridge to any company, they give it to Lexmark.)
This "Prebate" license was clearly listed on the outside of the box of the reduced cost toner refills.
So the question is: can a company say "We'll give you a discount on our product if you don't go ahead and use it in this specific way."? And if so, is it "deceptive business practice" to actually attempt to enforce that agreement? Remember, shrinkwrap licenses on the outside of the box have been deemed enforceable contracts by law. You may not like this, but it has been upheld time and again, and the court, like it or not, rules based on precedent and law (no matter what the varied partisan yahoos think).
Seems a lot less draconian now doesn't it? I don't think it's a step in a good direction, necessarily, but to all the people shouting "We own nothing!!!" -- that's not what this is about. Really. Read the decision. It's only 14 pages long.
All that said, it would surprise me if this stood up to appeal (though the makeup of the SCOTUS is enough up in the air that nobody can say anything for sure right now). There is a reason why the 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country, after all. This is quite an odd restriction to be placed upon the consumer, and though I don't know CA law, it wouldn't surprise me if it was eventually considered an undue and unlawful burden and hence the contract isn't valid. However, whether or not the contract is valid, it may be upheld that Lexmark's business practices weren't deceptive, which is what's actually contended here. So we'll have to see if there's an appeal, who ends up on SCOTUS in the coming months, and where it ends up.
But it really isn't the end of the universe guys . . .
Whatever happened to the sensible days? How is this supposed to be enforced anyway? Does this give the ink cartridge company the right to spy on me in my own home so as to make sure I'm not *gasp* refilling their cartridges?!
I know the drivers the the dell pritners made by lexmark report home from time to time. I don't have any idea what they report back, but I could imagine that if a one time use cart had a unique id number which they likely do jumped from empty to full i'm sure it's possible this is reported back to them.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
It is unlikely that Lexmark will bring a patent infringement suit against an individual end user for refilling his or her printer cartridge, but that does not mean that they are unable to do so.
Sure, but what if it is labelled "spring water"?
Well I'm in trouble then... I sometimes peel the labels off of my bottled water, surely they'll come after me citing the DMCA now!!
Sure, they can take away my inkjet refill syringe... -WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD, DEAD HAND!!! (printing bumper stickers right now - got my whole posse of ink refillin' scofflaws ready to paint the town red!)
I think that if is labeled: "No Refills", but that usually applies to the fact that the company won't refill the bottle. If they wanted to they can now.
We already have thousands of products which warn "Single use only" or "Not for individual sale" and so forth. Mostly, they are there to protect the company from what a consumer might do later - to keep their actions separate from what a consumer or reseller might do. This is to protect the company from losing business however and just seems wrong.
I guess it's like "For OEM Distribution" only...
Get your Unix fortune now!
...against our freedoms. And it is once again, due to the very very dangerous change in our society from one run by the people's government to that run by private corporations. Totally unacceptable and while most postings on /. may be tinged with irony or bashing a specific company, this kind of law MUST be challenged. Greed and corporate malfiance must NEVER be allowed to become RULE OF LAW.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
If Lexmark give a WRITTEN contract with each cartridge they sell requesting the refill to be made by them and the buyer *sign it* you may have a point. An "undestanding is not enough". If I buy in any shop those cartridge and decide to shoot it with a gun, to refill it with red pen ink or blood, or to use it as a paperweight, door stoper, or even to refill it with my own ink it is MY problem. You can argue what you want for software whether the EULA hold or not, but for physical object once they are sold you are fit to use them as you wish. Once sold they should have no influence whatsoever on the item they sold.
If they have a crappy buisness model which make them lose money whenever people get smart that is their problem.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I can imagine a fella being arrested for refilling his cartridge. As he's handcuffed, he listens to the lecture of a bald man with a monocule:
"You only ink twice, Mr. Bond"
According to Lexmark, its post-sale restriction on reusing the Prebate cartridges does not require consumers to return the cartridge at all; it only precludes giving the cartridge to another remanufacturer.
So, no law will prevent you from refilling it yourself; however a commercial venture can't do it.
Best Buy can have you arrested
Screw the ink cartridges, get a continuous ink system. I bought one months ago and I love it, you can get one with 100ml of ink per color for about the same price as 15ml from the manufacturer.
It's not something I would advise my grandmother to use, but I think slashdoters can handle it.
Which is why I don't believe in shrinkwrap licences.
Look. If you provide a physical object for me to take into my possession, and I didn't sign a contract expressly giving someone rights to re-obtain it, vis-a-vis a lease or rental agreement...
Screw off. It's mine.
Caveat Vendor.
Now the label on the box that says "single use only" is given force of law, and if you refill the cartridge you are liable for patent infringement.
Yeah, right.
Oh wait, you were serious?
I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
"Every sperm is sacred ... every sperm is good!"
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
you can only flip a mattress once
Get your Unix fortune now!
What kind of ass-backward country do you have to live in to get to where tearing up a contract results in being legally bound by it, and leaving it intact means you refuse it?
and here's the lowdown.
First, nowhere is it stated clearly, but I'm fairly sure they're not talking about inkjet cartridges but laser toners. These are the ones I code replacements for.
The chip in question is the Dallas-Maxim DS2432. It's an EEPROM with a twist: it uses some cryptography to perform authentication.
The idea is that the master (in this case the printer) and the memory can negotiate a shared key, which is done in the factory or during testing -- the chip doesn't use public key encryption, so it requires a key exchange `in the open' which must obviously be done before the chip reaches the customer. (Lexmark has done some ugly implementation mistakes in some printers but nothing THAT bad.)
So this key allows authentication of both the printer and the memory. After an authenticated read, the memory must compute a hash of some data (including a nonce and the last page read) and send it to the printer. If the hash matches what the printer was expecting, the printer is sure that the memory knows the shared key. (Unless stupid implementation mistakes are made that open the way for replay attacks.)
Conversely, when the printer asks the memory to commit a write, the memory requests a hash as well, to authenticate the printer. You may ask, `what's the point?' This memory holds data on how many copies were made, serial number and so on. If the memory just blindly wrote what it was told, remanufacturers could keep resetting the contents and reselling the cartridge.
So how do you build a replacement chip? Easy, get the key somehow and implement the protocols used by this memory on a microcontroller. Using an off-the-shelf DS2432 is impossible because these things have serial numbers with a fixed byte (the `family code') which is different from the same byte in Lexmark's DS2432s -- they probably buy so many of them that they were in a position to ask Dallas-Maxim to make batches of chips with modified family codes. A little bit of security by obscurity, but that wasn't a barrier to us -- it took less than a week to reimplement (in assembly) the DS2432 protocols on my favorite microcontroller architecture, the Texas MSP430.
Now, I don't like to get into the politics of this thing. Myself, I believe what I'm doing is perfectly fine and in fact the right of the consumer, EULAs and contracts and patents be damned. I wouldn't do it otherwise. Some people complain that Lexmark sold a discounted toner (called Prebate), on the basis that you would return it to them, and you didn't, and that's unfair. What they don't take into account is that your printer comes loaded with a Prebate cartridge, and with a small amount of toner to boot. Many if not most people just use this one cartridge that came with their printer, and keep remanufacturing it. The customer didn't have a choice in this -- if Lexmark offered a regular toner, or no toner at all, when the customer bought the printer, the situation might be less clearcut. As it stands, I see this as Lexmark forcing everyone to pay for a crippled toner, giving them no choice in the matter, and so they're perfectly justified to remanufacture it. (This might not be considered ethical by some, and is most probably illegal, but I don't care.)
Moreover, the prices they charge are completely absurd. I know this is standard practice in the industry, but I consider this highly immoral. Very few companies possess the technology to make a printer, but many possess the technology to remanufacture toners and cartridges. By imposing legal and technical hurdles on remanufacturing, printer makers are effectively enforcing a monopoly, and the worst thing is, some courts are sanctioning this monopoly. The traditional analogy with auto parts holds very well, and many other frightening scenarios haven't been explored -- what if the printer makers agree on a policy of no longer manufacturing toners and cartridges for printers older than 1 year so as to force everyone to upgrade and m
Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/
Trader Joe's Natural Mountain Spring Water explicitly states "DO NOT REFILL".
Hey Eric, how's it goin? I'm gonna need them to go ahead and catch me, uh, refilling my cartridges. Oh, and I'm also gonna need them to go ahead and uh, stop charging $35 for 1 ounce of ink. M'kay? Great, tha-anks.
The image is a dream, the beauty is real. Can you see the difference?
I don't have an Evian bottle to hand right now, but I'm pretty sure it says something on the side like "This bottle is not intended for use with anything but Evian water."
the Industrial Property (*) Act exempts explicitly personal use of *any* patented invention or utility.
(*) == trademarks + patents
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Crazy stuff that makes me glad to NOT live in the ninth circuit.
/. flamebait/ /potential flamebait
potential
It is, after all, the circuit that ruled "under God" unconstitutional.
And missing the point beats FUD?
Opening a box on which a "contract" is printed has been given force of law. That's the issue here. Vendor convenience is redefining legal notions of property and obligation.
It started with shrinkwrap EULAs. Now we're renting ink cartridges. Either Lexmark is overstepping its bounds, or Pepsi, Bic, and other disposable-goods manufacturers should get in on the action. Think how much money every business could save on raw materials if the law propped up such absurd "agreements" at point-of-sale.
By replying to this post, you agree that I will take legal custody of your firstborn child. G'head.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
And the 9th Circuit has also been upheld more times than any other federal circuit court. This is because the 9th Circuit is huge, and has more cases go to the Supreme Court than any other circuit. In terms of actual percentage of reversals, which is the important thing, they're actually quite average.
If you really want to badmouth the 9th Circuit, can you at least complain about something real, instead of your latest delusion?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
But isn't it very LIKELY that they will sue the pants off businesses who offer cheap refill kits, as they can only be used for infringing purposes, and the businesses who refill cartridges for cheap? Thus the consumer suffers and the courts have again taken the Stupid Road WRT patents. Or am I wrong?
Currently hooked on AMP
If the justice systemn in USA was not so medival and insane, I would have laughed at this ruling, but alas it's true in all it's insanity.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
You can reattach a ticket to its stub does not mean that you should be allowed to see the movie again.
Why should a ink-cartridge company be forced to sell you a mechanism of destroying their business? It is their product and they can sell it to you at whatever price they choose.
You should just choose to purchase elsewhere.
Be careful what you wish for, though. At least we haven't seen forced obsalesence yet. If they cant control the cartridges, they will control the printers.
Ok.
35 U.S.C. 271. Infringement of patent (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Read what I typed.
You can infinge every patent in the world so long as you do it for your own purposes.
What the fuck kind of damages are you going to seek when I infringe your patent for personal use?
SLASHDOT - THE FOX NEWS OF PATENTS
Gotta love getting a new printer with half-filled ink cartridges too.
.. under force of law.
However, if there are no damages to win in court, you're not going to be sued. Lexmark can't force you to buy their products or pay for their refilling service. If you manage to refill your own ink cartridges in your home, you are infringing (as I stated and you confirmed), but you're perfectly free to do so.
Let's see, Lexmark makes extra sucky printers, people stop buying Lexmark printers, Lexmark starts loosing money. In a desperate appempt to not go broke they try some legal scamming claiming the encryption or was it the shape of the cartrige makes it protected by the DMCA to force paying customers to pay even more for their 19ml, used to be 42lm, of ink. They Lost. Now they're claiming what they decided to print on the package is a legally binding agreement. How long until someone puts this on their packaging?
"by opening this package you agree to only use products of this company and never any similar products produced by any of its competition for the remainder of your naural life under pain of a beating with the DMCA stick."
The DMCA was created with a purpose, to kill off Napster, it did, now it's being abused and needs to be put to sleep. Lets all write to our representitives asking to repeal the DMCA or at least support the DMCA reform HR 1201(search EFF)
Include as many examples as possible, Lexmark(x2) universal tv remotes, replacement garage door openers. Don't forget to challenge the **AA's claims of lost profits and piracy as being overly exadurated, the real reason they're loosing money is because of failed business models and the quality of their new content has dropped off significantly and people are spending their money on games over music. They also want to raise the prices of legal services by at least 50% to 250%, itunes 99c to $1.49 or $2.50.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Lexmark can sue me for killing the CEO's dog, regardless of whether the CEO has a dog or whether I've ever been in the same time zone as the dog. But they aren't going to, because it's absurd, frivilous, and there's no chance of success.
You're perfectly free to infringe a patent for personal use. The instant you engage in business, however, you're going to be in hot water.
Too bad we can't refill the empty heads of some of these corporate executives. They've probably already made that illegal anyway.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Dang! Could I have made any more spelling mistakes?
Sorry.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Read the law "makes, uses" those would be for personal use. As for what damages, well if I was lexmark I would say however much an ink cartige costs * however many cartriges you filled + any additional fees I can get added on.
Holyfreakinshit...what a load of crap. So if I buy my Dasani water at the store and they print "for single use only" on those too, will I be nailed for patent infringement when I drink my water and fill it up again at the water fountain? This is really getting out of hand.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
I'm going to seek an injunction to stop you, a reasonable royalty (tripled if I've already warned you to stop), and maybe my attorneys' fees. I don't actually want your money (you probably don't have much) but I want to make an example to you, so that a large number of people like you will go back to buying my overpriced product.
Everyone seems to love corporations so much, this is the logical outcome.
I hate sigs.
Wonderful! EXCELLENT news!
Now, maybe, the promise of the "paperless office" that has been just around the corner for 20 years may become a reality.
I haven't printed 10 pages all year. My three kids, all in high school, have tons of papers to do. And ALL of them are submitted via e-mail or brought in as a file on a USB key, CD or floppy.
The few times I need actual photographs from my digital camera I just upload them to Walmart or Shutterfly and pick them up on the way to or from work.
At the office, maybe 100 pages a month are printed out for 26 employees in a high-tech business. Most of what used to be printed is now
presented on a projector and distributed via FTP or on a CD-R. No more of this "one printed copy per attendee" waste.
Think about it. What really do you need paper copies for? How much do you really print? Vote with your wallet and let the ink companies DCMA themselves out of business.
Good riddance.
-Charles
Sales and marketing materials are mass duplicated at Kinko's
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Interesting definition of freedom you have.
You can do anything illegal that you want as long as noone cares.
If Lexmark sues a person for refilling their single use ink cartridge, they can ask for damages which include court costs. They have nothing to lose, particularly if they want to send a strong message.
Only if the bottle had soemthing patented.
so it would have to be a fancy sports type bottle.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Epson IMHO, makes by far some of the best printers in the industry. What sets them apart is that their cartridges do not have the print head built in. The individual ink tanks have a hole in the bottom that a plastic tube sticks up into from the print head to basically drain the tank. This makes these tanks extremely easy to refill. just use a half a swizzle stick and a syringe and plug it into the hole like the normal one in the head and fill 'er up.
Of course, and you may only fill the gas tank of your car once - when empty, you have to buy a new car. How else is GMC ever going to make money on cars?
Oh well, what the hell...
The PC you purchased can only be upgraded by our authorized dealers.
You cannot connect USB devices that are not authorized.
You can only access the internet through authorized factory internet providers.
PCI slots are for company supplied PCI cards only, you will go to jail if you open this case for any reason.
If it is found that the case has been open, you will go to jail.
Modifications to the installed Operating System, or the changes to BIOS settings will make you subject to arrest.
You agree to company installed spyware that reports the computer status to the factory on a weekly basis.
If you are not a United States Government Citizen (subject class) this law does not apply to you as long as you are not in interstate commerce.
If you continue to claim to be a subject class (slave) citizen, owing all your granted *privledges* to the government, then you must always do what the government says. We tell you waht to do and where to go and how to spend your money (after we take a lot of it directly).
And it's all because you are ignorant to how jurisdiction works, and you think I am a whacked out freak because you don't understand law and how to look it all up on google.
It's your own fault.
That's just like the Kikkoman Soy Sauce bottles at my favorite Chinese buffet. They have "Refill only with Kikkoman" printed on them. I've been tempted every time I see those to sneak a few drops of La Choy soy sauce into one of them and see if it would explode and take out the entire shopping center that the resteraunt is in.
[Beavis-and-Butthead]Whoa! That was cool! Huh-huhuhuhuh...[/Beavis-and-Butthead]
This space unintentionally left blank.
That's why some folks call it the "9th Circus"
Judges shouldn't legislate...period.
Actually I think they would probably go for the maximum number of times that you could have refilled it. In the case of laser toner this would be limited by the drum to no more than 3-5 times, but in case of ink refill kits I suppose it could be 50 or even 100 times. That could be alot of money. Like the RIAA, Lexmark would probably say that refilling their cartridge is indistinguishable from robbing them at gunpoint.
The score is
Gigantic Corporations: 1
Everyone Else: 0
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The cost of the ink is more than purchasing a newer printer. I don't use my printer very much, but seem to need more ink every 2 years. I check the prices for the cartridges and it's more than a new printer. Anyone else run into this, and think it a bit shady?
Will you please run for president so i have someone to vote for?! :)
to do such wrong.
Don't sell at special prices under such conditions that you know will be broken.
Doing so only means you are looking for trouble.
And if they are really uptight about their patented cartridges then I'm sure they can make them non-refillable.
It's certainly not about recycling...
I have a HP printer.
Ink cartridges last as long as I do. (my wife reads slashdot). I save and chronicle dates bought and 'time out' dates.
Am waiting for the lawsuit money.
1/I take the nice package
...
2/I Biff the "1 use only" mention
3/I put my initials on the correction
4/I open the package
Voila !
I didn't accept this part of the contract, I dutifuly notified the other party the same way they notified me, put in the correction I wanted and authenticated it...
Now, when I open this pack, Lexmark is legaly bound to the notification I made
(Yeah, I know, this is stupid, but if it works in one direction, it should work in the other...that's the beauty on the juridic system : you can be two playing at being idiots...)
Also, if they just put a patent on the "one use only" system, I'm sure the Condoms industry can come up with some prior art...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Does it count as business if I refill one and give it to a friend? For free (as in cartridges)?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
"some smuck"
Is that a kind of jelly?
Perhaps you mean schmuck, you schmendrik.
Well, couldn't some company sell "multi-use" cartridges that are compatible with whatever printers (as wasn't that shown to be legal last year...??) and then, there would be a clear - non infringing use, just not with the stock parts?
Personally, aren't we getting rather close to various car related precedents where it was held that the companies could not prevent you from modifying your car with 3rd party ad-ons, and also couldn't void the warrenty just for using 3rd party parts?
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
The package explicitly stated "No refills," so I just figured, "Fair enough, I'll just buy my own."
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Is it April 1??
This ip stuff is a black, very black, comedy.
Spring water, huh? Guess what Evian spells backwards?
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Just wait till the next minor apple movment or MS goof up, that is when the real fun begins!
Of course, now that apparently has the force of law, also.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Punitive damages? Idiot.
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
No re-fill is an ambiguity i.e. does no refill mean that the device is incapable of being refilled or that you a expressly denied under law the oppurtunity to refill. Under normal contract law all ambiguities always go against the initiator/writer of the contract (bad lawyers versus good lawyers - you win or you lose).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
It's a civil breach of contract.
I know the drivers the the dell pritners made by lexmark report home from time to time. I don't have any idea what they report back, but I could imagine that if a one time use cart had a unique id number which they likely do jumped from empty to full i'm sure it's possible this is reported back to them.
Even better - the drivers could then print smudgy, crappy printouts with a message box every 3 pages saying 'inferior ink - please use official Lexmark ink'.
This would be enough to drive 99% of users straight to official ink cartridges without a 2nd thought.
IANAL but...
... I mean how fair is it that a corporation can hire a team of lawyers to carefully craft a complex agreement that you as an individual have to accept completely IN FULL with zero negotiation on your side nor ANY legal representation on your side. That seems entirely wrong.
In MANY types of contract negotiation the side writing the contract is compelled to advise you to seek representation to make sure you understand the agreement you are signing. If you just blindly sign, much of the time it can nullify the agreement because one side had a lawyer and you can't be expected to understand complex legalese
With shrink-wrap and click-through licenses you can't be expected to have a lawyer advise you every single time, which leads me to believe that if society is willing to accept this as a reasonable thing, THEN there should be some sort of public body that turns them in to PLAIN ENGLISH that any layman can read and understand.
Or, get ride of them completely. As far as I'm concerned entering in to a legal contract by opening or clicking anything is totally ridiculous.
what about the North Carolina law that fights lexmar
Having worked for an HP call center in Canada supporting AiO units I know for a fact the damages refilling a cartridge can do. Besides voiding your warrenty. HP uses a specific ink and with 20,000-40,000 holes for it to spray out of anything other then that ink can clog it.
so you get save a very small amount per page, and get poorer quality.
Look ma! We found a crybaby capitalist, who wants the government to enforce whatever monopolistic business model he dreams up!
You have a very shallow understanding of the case, as well as a very similar case that came down in a different circuit not too long ago.
With great power comes great fan noise.
Still think liberal judges such as we find in the 9th Circus Court are "for the little guy" do you?
And remember a couple months ago when liberal activist judges took our property rights away (I know some were appointed by Republicans but we still know they're lefties)?
I hope Roberts and another nominee equally as concervative (assuming Roberts is) get confirmed fast before Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and every other bullshit corporation end up just mounting a fucking camera in every room of our houses.
But it seems like most of my techie brethren still think these people are on our sides. *sigh*
Nearly everything you said would be correct if we were talking about copyrights, but we're not. There is no such thing as first sale for patent law.
As a printer repair technician for years, please know that using those refill kits, you are destroying your printheads and causing more problems for yourself than you could possibly want.
I am going rip one of those "do not remove" matress tags off and stuff it into an ink cartridge. The combined lawsuits will be so complex that the judge's head will explode. (Hmmm. Is blood single use?)
Table-ized A.I.
One bottled water label, I'm not sure which but I think it's Dasani, prints the source of the water on the label: Municipal water supply of the city of Corpus Christi, Texas. It costs less than a nickel to fill that thing up, and they sell it to you for a dollar a pop.
When I buy bottled water, I go out of my way to find "mountain spring water".
But I guess that if you're a citizen of Corpus Christi, you can refill with no legal problems, as you will refill it with the same thing that's printed on the label.
While we're at it, what's the deal with those tags on matresses? "Do not remove this tag under penalty of law", and that's all they say.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
From one four-digit slashdot user to another, you need to read the whole 35 U.S.C. ("Except as otherwise provided in this title") to ascertain the scope. The "domain" encompassed therein is clearly "commercial use".
Well for one, if someone uses this cartridge and gives it to a another company, how is that company obligated to "fufill the contract", when the never had the chance to read the packaging which has this "contract". Does teh cartridge itself say 1 time use only or just the packaging..if it is just the packaging then they have no legal basis it seems.IANAL...but in my mind You cannot be held liable for a contract if you have not seen or heard of the contract. How are the refilling companies supposed to differentiate only cartridge from another..
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
they automobile industry could make a killing if they use this lingo in the fine print on their contracts!
ôó
We need alternatives for color printing that are more cost effective. Every generation of printer seems to do more and cost less, but they of course are using the ink to subsidize the printers. I like my Epson printer because I can print on CDs and DVDs, but man the cartridges are killing me.
Note: this is hypothetical. I haven't bought Lexmark in the past, and I for damn sure won't in the future. Neither will anyone I ever advise. Good PR move, guys.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
It is not all they say. Right after that it says "Except by Owner" It's there so that the shady matress salesmen don't try to rip you off with "lemon" mattresses.
Also, you're a tool. Mountain spring water is not necessarily any better than tap water. In fact, it could be far worse, healthwise. The municipal water at least has minimum standards and is treated to kill microorganisms. Mountain spring water has no such guarantee (except that the company doesn't want to get sued.. national brands should be okay, Pete's Wicked Water should be avoided like a cliche.)
When I buy water I buy the cheapest stuff that has no taste. If that's the local tap water I'm very happy. Sadly, tap quality seems to have been declining everywhere lately.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Can we arbitrarily construe other Titles of U.S.C. also to only apply to commerce? That would be quite handy! "No really, your honor, I didn't violate the law when I killed that eagle, because Title 16 only applies to commercial use."
IIRC Dasani water (made by Coca Cola) flopped in the UK after the government found out it was worse than the tap water it was made from (one of the additives was contaminated).
I'm sorry, but there is an entire market around the HP 3, 4 and 5 printers. They are tanks that just need new toner and a fuser once in a while...
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
35 U.S.C. 271. Infringement of patent (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Read what I typed.
You can infinge every patent in the world so long as you do it for your own purposes.
What the fuck kind of damages are you going to seek when I infringe your patent for personal use?
Something like your "gains" (the cost of the cartridges not bought - cost of ink) plus punitive I'm thinking. The easy way would be to go by volume of ink consumed: if they catch you with half a 100ml bottle of ink that would mean that you didn't buy 5 10ml cartridges, right? In all likelihood this is meant to go after refill services since any time this stuff doesn't go to the landfill some poor schlub might make a dollar that could possibly go to some rich fuck with a seat on the House Rules Committee.
SLASHDOT - THE FOX NEWS OF PATENTS
truer for having you aboard...
I would type up a nice letter to the court about this ruling.
But I seem to have just ran out of ink...
When I bought a printer recently, chose between Cannon which allow refilable cartridges and Epson which dont. Even though Epson was a little cheaper, I went for the Cannon.
Don't buy Epson or Lexmark or any other non-refilable brand. Badmouth them to your non-geek friends and family. Let the marketplace speak.
I would love to see a company/individual exploit the legality of these one-way 'agreements'. Produce some product, and in the box-wrap license, include some ludicrous-but-legal provisions (all pages printed with this cartridge are copyrighted works of the cartridge manufacturer subject to royalties, the user of the software agrees that it can only be used on a computer with 1MB or less of system RAM and will pay an additional $10 fee per megabyte of RAM in the system upon which it is installed, etc.), and proceed to use the existing precedents to vigorously enforce them. Reduction to absurd terms shows how absurd these things are in reality.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
I quote the 2-106 of the UCC:
(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires "contract" and "agreement" are limited to those relating to the present or future sale of goods. "Contract for sale" includes both a present sale of goods and a contract to sell goods at a future time. A "sale" consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price (Section 2-401). A "present sale" means a sale which is accomplished by the making of the contract.
First of all, the first line merely means that in the 'contract of sales' section, when they mention 'contract', they are only talking about 'contracts of sale' and no other ones. Like, duh.
Second of all, let's not get distracted by the 'future' stuff. The sale is happening when the goods and money change hands. In fact, that is how you are accepting the offer. If you are truly bound by the box, it must be at the sale. (That is, you must be bound, at the sale, to follow the terms of the box, when you open it. Somewhat odd, logically, but works, and that's what the court said.)
So here's the important bit: A "sale" consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price.
It is not a barter of two material goods, it is not a promise to do any action (except possible deliever the goods, which is discussed specifally later on.), it can include nothing but goods on one side and money on the other. Anything else can be a contract, but not under the category of 'contract of sale'.
And, purchasing Lexmark cartridges is now, logically, not a 'contract for sale'. Because it also include your promise to follow the terms on the side of the box when you open it.
I don't know what the circuit court was smoking this time, but their logic does not hold water. Contracts for sale are defined quite specifically in the UCC, and that ain't it.
Why didn't they just declare it another kind of contract? Because, retail purchases without specific agreements have always been 'implied present contract of sales'. If they tried to claim it was any other sort of contract, they'd get shot out of the water by consumer protection laws, which don't allow consumers in stores to enter implied contracts like that.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
How long until Micro$oft puts pressure on PC manufacturers to only allow Windows?
"You are only allowed to run Microsoft products on this hardware."
Even worse would be to only allow certain versions of the OS. New version of Windows comes out and you have to buy a new computer.
there are plenty of players inthe printer market that no one needs to put up with their bullshit. just don't use their printers. i have bought a lexmark product in a very very long time due to their shitty cart. polices. take note, lexmark.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
So is Lexmark going to pay for my shipping costs to get my used cartrigdes back to them? I assume that they are going to be recycling all of the used Lexmark cartridges in the world. Oh wait, that's not profitable?
Tough. You asked for it, you'll get it.
Perhaps the EPA needs to contact Lexmark about the enviromental damage that their used cartridges are doing...
If there is no way to legally recycle, then lexmark is creating waste. More than likely toxic waste if you want to get down and dirty with your definitions.
If I understand it, the case refers to "prebate" cartridges, where you get $30 off by agreeing to return the used cartridge. So you theoretically have a choice of paying more if you want to sell the cartridge to someone else. (Refillers pay about $2 for empty cartridges.) This ends up being like "return your Windows install disk for a refund" if you don't want the preinstalled Windows on your new PC. In practice, you can't do it, the retailers won't stock the non-prebate ones, won't discount them the same, etc; but in law they've provided an alternative.
Lexmark can sue me...But they aren't going to, because it's absurd, frivilous, and there's no chance of success.
Every heard of slapp lawsuits? They don't have to have a case to cause major trouble, especially with a small, shallow pockets individuals and companies. And since they went to court to get this absurd ruling, it is clear they don't like people refilling.
The answer for consumers is simple if we all find out about this: Boycott Lexmark into bankruptcy, and others if they follow Lexmark's lead.
How ya like dat?
Nivea
(-(friend^2))^(1/2)
Incoming mod-bombing for having a different viewpoint, 2 o'clock! Heads up!
Can we arbitrarily construe other Titles of U.S.C. also to only apply to commerce? That would be quite handy! "No really, your honor, I didn't violate the law when I killed that eagle, because Title 16 only applies to commercial use."
This is an obviously rhetorical stupid question that doesn't even attempt to answer the question of Title 35 applying to commercial and/or personal context. Stupid questions of this sort typically appear when one of the following is true:
1) The stupid question accurately represents the mental capicty of the questioner.
2) The questioner lacks the ability to respond meaningfully to the question he is deriding. (Also known as the Mike Tyson "if you can't beat 'em, bite 'em" approach.)
3) The questioner is not interested in, or capable of, civil discourse.
Barring a follow-up reference to some clarifying material, this situation looks like option 2 or 3.
For what it's worth, I'm really interested in actual facts that clarify the issue, not the misguided attempt to prevail in an argument through condescension. Can anyone point to a legal reference that clarifies this commercial/personal use issue (aside from Title 35 itself)?
Because the whole thing is just a pretense to keep the user from giving the empties to the companies that refill them. They are purposely trying to form a contract with the cartridge buyer in order to be able to go after the refillers for "inducing" the buyer into violating the contract.
It seems pretty unfair to hold the 3rd party to the terms of a rebate contract they never saw, didn't agree to, and are not a part of does it?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
They can go into bankruptcy for all I care. Their inks are some of the highest priced on the market around here....A new set of inks for one of their cheaper color printers costs about the same as the printer itself. Just better off pitching the printer in the trash and buying a new one...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
i was in mijer the other day. i notced they have some neat refill kits for hp and lexmark printers. you just slap the cartrage in this little bay and it fills it no mess no fuss. its funny that refill kits are acullt inproving over time from using needles etc to something as simple as that. that whole act is for the lexmark extrange program so they can sell you a cartrage at a diskcount rate. this isnt screw you you canr refill your cartages you payed full price for aka new not remanufactred. its for the cartages on the selvs that are like 20 cheaper couse there remade reused ones. so bascily there saying if you wana refill your cartrage please buy a new one. of course in the real world thers no way there ever gonna be able to bust anyone for it. even if they did i dought it would stand up in any curt.
Personally, I'm sick of hearing about Lexmark looking for new ways to rip off consumers. They give away their lower than low end, disposable printers and then charge out the wazoo for ink, and try to prevent people (and companies) from refilling the carts. I've never bought a Lexmark printer myself, but I think an all out boycott of their products is called for. Need a printer? Go HP. Or go anyone else for that matter, so long as it's not a Lexmark.
Hey, here's an idea... How about making ink cartridges that don't stop letting me print when they're still HALF FULL. You moneygrubbing bastards.
Is it 'breaking the law', per this bullshit, to simply zap the chip so it lets you keep printing? As that's still technically using it ONCE.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
What if I dig said single use item out of someone else's garbage?
I never agreed to the license since I never broke the seal.
Can scavengers be prosecuted for re-use of things found in the dumpster?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
So what is the bigger crime... getting the ink cartridge refilled at 1/20 the price of the original, or having to pay an ungodly price for the 'rare, special, magic, vendor ink'. FSCK! Now looking for a bargain or getting a better deal elsewhere is considered a crime? Screw that! Call me a crimminal then! I got the ink cartridges refilled before, and I'll do it again! Here's another little goodie for ya... if HP gets all hinkie about it, and screws the ink over so that the printer will only accept HP ink.... I'll toss the printer in the trash and look really hard for one that gives me what I want (and I feel that I'm not alone). It's an open warning to anyone who is trying to pull the Microsoft kind of shit. I kicked Mickeysoft the hell off my computer! If HP tries to pull the same kind of shit on my printer, I'll kick them the hell off of that too!
Better still, use fatwallet or similar sites to buy new printers for less than the cost of a new ink cartridge and give/ebay the old one. I got a new epson r200 printer (not just the ink) for $6 after rebate ($49 out of pocket.) If you missed that deal, there's already a new deal with a net price of $15 for the whole new printer. Yeah, you have to plan ahead a bit, but note that the ink costs $55 per color and $11 per black. The new printer came with one each.
As more and more people wise up to the "loss leader" system of selling cheap printers with expensive ink, they'll lose more and more cash until they have to quit the nonsense.
everything in moderation
But periodically, I get small checks that appear to be from my credit card company (about $2.50). A reasonable person might think that they are a refund. On one occasion I accidentally cashed it (wife put 'em in a pile of checks to cash) not realizing that there is a small paragraph on the back of the check that enrolls me in "a rewards program". The paper that comes with it talks about a dollar per year for something.
But what you get is a $70 charge against your credit card, from some company that you never gave your credit card information to. When I was cursing FirstUSA over the phone, I asked why I cannot follow suit and write a contract on my payments to the effect of "cashing this check agrees to give the sender a new house". This practice is probably not legal, but if the penalty isn't high enough the legality of it is a moot point.
I only saw three judges' names on the PDF.
The defeated party could ask for the decision to be reheard en banc (by the entire set of 9th Ciruit judges instead of just a panel of three); that would add another step of appeals before the Supreme Court.
IANAL, so I don't know if an en banc hearing is *required* before moving on to the Supreme Court.
Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
Can't get punative damages without actual damages. Try again...
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
and if you refill the cartridge you are liable for patent infringement
:]
Seriously, who fraggin' cares ? Thise who did refilling for money will probably manage, no worry, and those who refill themselves, nobody cares about them. So again, who cares ? Damn, this must be a monday morning
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
If you want to stop capitalism (which is defined as private ownership of the means of production), as opposed to, say, curbing its excesses, I'm curious as to what your preferred replacement is. Especially as all the recent attempts have been utter failures.
Maybe you can start by shipping your PC (your means of producing /. posts) to the UN or
something.
You guys do realize that not everything that is against the law is crime, right?
Yes, but first they have to know that you refilled their ink cartridges in an infringing manner. Unless you're planning on telling them, putting up a banner outside your home, or devoting webspace to the "hur, hur, I'm fucking over Lexmark by refilling their ink cartridges" movement... THEY WILL NEVER KNOW.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Do you actually think the cartridges that come with new printers are full? The local cartridge refilling shop (okay hardly a reliable source) says that they usually have a third of the ink of a new cartridge
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
"So can I still fill up used bottled water bottles with my tap water if it is labled '1 liter'?"
if you are using a patented bottle potentially. Patent law prohibits unlicensed USE. And the word "USE" in patent law literally means "USE". Whereas in copyright law it only means 'do something normally exclusively the right of the copyright holder'.
However in your specific case the language implies that as long as you dont exceed 1 litre it would comply.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Yes, they do... Pardon the double post but I took the time to google prebates.
But on the other hand
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
>I don't have an Evian bottle to hand right now,
>but I'm pretty sure it says something on the
>side like "This bottle is not intended for use
>with anything but Evian water."
I've got it too (in France).
There are two reasons:
- brand (they don't want anyone filling empty bottles with tap water and selling them as Evian)
- security : you should not fill an empty water bottle with chemicals for example. (The number of persons doing that is amazing; some people were severely wounded this way in a restaurant a few weeks a go).
So if you fill it with contaminated water, it's your problem, don't complain to Evian/Danone.
Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
licenses which restrict re-use of physical items should be made explicitly illegal by statute. The reason is that such licenses encourage destruction of the environment and waste of natural resources such as OIL.
Patent holders can make a profit by pricing their inventions at a level which presumes re-use. They have a PATENT so they already have a monopoly. The only reason lexmark is trying this is because they dont wish to compete in the INK market. And they want their cartridges to appear cheaper than they actually are. (i.e. it looks the same price as another brand with a reusable license)
Unfortunately the courts hands are tied. Contract law is pretty clear on the issue, and in so far as the case at hand involves printing license restrictions ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BOX, then there can be informed consent. (unlike licenses hidden inside the box and unrevealed until after you buy).
You need license from a patent holder even to USE a patented item. (inlike copyright which does not give the copyright exclusive right to READ).
The proper level of government to fix this problem however is legislatures and congress. single use patent licenses encourage pointless waste. They should either be illegal or should entail a heavy TAX in order to collect the necessary funds to pay for the cleanup of all the needless waste.
Soon automakers will make it illegal to repair or resell their automobiles (forcing people to buy new ones). All sorts of other scenarios are possible. But this is legal in contract and patent law. Courts can not stop this.
The law itself needs to be changed or else we are facing a society that nothing can be recycled or reused because patent owners would rather force consumers to consume more. And this will only encourage needless waste which ultimately will come back to harm the public good.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
In my fantasy world, some company (perhaps a new entrant) will come up with a printer where they find the correct balance of printer cost vs. ink cost that works for ma and pa kettle and accept something less than an absurd profit margin. This has to be coupled with an aggressive advertising campaign. Obviously this won't be HP because they have a completely fucked business model that depends on milking the golden goose of ink jet cartridges (why people buy HP enterprise servers knowing the viability of the entire company is built on the fickle and irrational willingness of consumers to buy list price HP ink carts at Worst Buy perplexes me to this day - I suppose this is because I didn't get an MBA which would have masked absurdity from my mind).
Such a company would assume that people are willing to pay an extra five bucks per cartridge (as I am) for a "safe" alternative to avoid getting completely fucked and also willing to pay an extra 50 to 75 bucks for a printer (perhaps based on advertising that emphasises the "per page cost") that has reasonable 'per page costs' and will last for 4+ years.
Everyone feels vaguely fucked (or even visibly angry) when they buy their ink jet (or, for the less insightful, their first full-price cartridges) - just like people used to (before cars.com and similar sites) when they bought a car (of course, on those, you can do a little better by negotiating if you figure out which dealers are cars.com dealers and which are not and bypass cars.com and keep the negotiations REALLY crisp with the fleet manager - give me another "$200 off and the deal is closed - else, NO deal and "have a nice day" - my experience is that fleet managers get this and have no problem with it [but, if they can't do it, you MUST walk and use the pricing information you learned on another local dealer -- of course this is useless if you're in a rural area where there is one zzz dealer within 100 miles], unlike the idiots on the retail sales floor)
I suspect that the $200 (and ultimately less) color laser printers will eventually be the death of the absurd ink jet prices. Printing a yahoo map on a color laser works fine. No, you probably won't print hard-copy pictures of the new baby on the laser for your two geriatric relatives (you will send these to snapfish.com and wait three days or two hours at WalMart), but ultimately what we want is a bit of color for productivity - which is only available at at rational price w/color laser
Oh well, back to reality...
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Uhh.... why did you buy the water in the first place?
I actually do this. I do not print often but I have gone through three printers in a row without buying new ink, just switching to a new printer.
Note that the cartridges that come with new printers usually do NOT contain as much ink as a cartridge you buy - it's often a lot less, in fact.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
They seem about the same to me in pages printed, but I don't track it that closely, and it doesn't really matter. $6 for a third full color and a third full black (not to mention an entire new printer) is still a much better deal than $55 for a color cartridge and $11 for a black. Even $15 for a new printer + 1/3 color + 1/3 black beats the raping of the "full" ink cartridge prices.
:)
Plus it's sure to cost the printer whores some cash. What's not to love about that?
everything in moderation
What is needed is awareness, observation, rational logic, spirituality and human values. A system is only as good as the level of enlightenment in the population. With ignorant people, you will have abysmal results (USSR). Now, the level of ignorance and superficiality in the West is on the rise, and we need to lift these mentioned values.
It has nothing to do with the laws, rules and political system. The results comes from optimism, a drive to contribute to the community and a feeling of responsibility and belongingness to that community.
We can all start by starting with ourselves, since until we do, we have absolutely nothing to teach the world. It's already started, just jump aboard!
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
This would be a great scheme if it wasn't for the environmental waste that it produces.
If I could buy a printer/ink combo and tell them to "hold the printer" I'd take it, but I'm not happy throwing away a printer (no-one I know would want a new printer with no ink) and a huge load of packaging every time the cartrigde runs out.
How exactly do you propose to get a quart of water {= 40 fluid ounces, x 0.0284 = 1.136 litres} into a one litre bottle?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Have you noticed that the ink cartriges on new printers are not full?
Kind of like the very poor quality "for testing only" batteries you get with some electronic equipment nowadays.
I can imagine a fella being arrested for refilling his cartridge. As he's handcuffed, he listens to the lecture of a bald man with a monocule:
"You only ink twice, Mr. Bond"
Surely you meant "Dye another day"?
I work at best buy, and yes, the cartridges that come with new printers are just "samples". One third is about right.
Everyone knows most printers are sold for next to nothing, or free with new computers. Often at a loss for the company. They make their profit by selling printer cartridges. This is just another way for the company to keep its customers. Personally "if" I could get new printer cartridges at a reasonable price, I would be inclined to do it rather than mess about with refilling old ones. Aside from all that, most people probably don't refill cartridges anyway, thay just throw them away. And ink cartridges are among the worst thing you can dump in a landfill. Anything that encourages recycling is a good thing. Even better if big companies can make a profit at it, as it will insure the practice becomes widely accepted.
No, that was more to do with the advertisements about it having "added spunk".
..... um ..... how shall I put this? Baby-making fluid.
"Spunk" is British slang for
Because USA is looking like ZOO now, with all it's patent infringement monkey business.
They make a stupid patents, violate them, sue each other, go to prison... And as result - doing nothing, just wasting national funds.
I guess there must be a reason for such a concentrated stupidity within one (although huge) country.
Holy cow, I just don't believe that.
What can be worse than UK tap water?
I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
With that ends the matter.Why even discuss it!Its that much insane thing!
Anyways,may the ppl screw Lexmark!
Why does yahoo do this
I think it's probably just to encourage you to buy more Volvic rather than anything legally binding but it's disconcerting all the same.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
Im guessing they would like to target bulk refillers like cartridge world.
I think its quiet sad given the environmental impact of all those desposible cartridges lexmark should be running encouraging refilling not encouraging landfill.
Yes, it's unlikely that Lexmark will go after individual users, and it would certainly be difficult for them to figure out how even if they could (maybe phone-home printer drivers). Damages are "to be determined by the court", but never less than "a reasonably royalty". This essentially translates into "whatever Lexmark can get away with", and may include attorney fees (although thats said to be for "exceptional cases", which hopefully wouldn't extent to personal use).
Anyway, link (in portuguese), and translated:Obviously, the []s are mine.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
If the grandparent had done as he had suggested, and read the whole of Title 35, it rapidly would have been clear that the whole title pertains to all patents, and is not specifically reduced to commercial use. I just finished reading most of it, and while there are some non-commercial use exemptions, they only apply to food and drugs. And it's only excemption from monentary damages, you can still be injucted(is that a word?) and be required to pay attorneys fees.
UK beer, obviously. Unless Ireland counts as the UK -- Guinness is fine.
I have one right here, and it says:
This bottle is intended for the exclusive use of Evian Natural Mineral Water.
I keep it on my desk and refill it from the tap 2 or 3 times a day...
In a civil case the required standard of proof is balance of probability. Why must we have this discussion every time a court case comes up?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Interesting statement; why do you make it? My experience of UK tap water is that in terms of taste and colour it varies depending on where you are, but it's uniformly safe, outside of rare accidents, and some areas have excellent tap water.
Maybe you mean London tap water, which has passed through several other Londoners before it gets to you.
However, it's still safe to drink.
Compare that with France where people don't drink water from the tap. On my first visit to France, a cockroach came out of the tap in my hotel room.
We don't have cockroaches in Scotland.
You coldn't buy bottled water here until the mid-eighties, and it's still not a big thing. In France, the supermarkets have huge areas set aside just to bottled water. I remember being quite stunned when I saw it. But there's a simple reason why they have it and we don't, they need it. We don't.
Sorry to pick on France.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Liquids cost less in the western hemisphere because they sell short measures.
This trend of licensing by just printing some stuff on the box *must* stop. If companies want to license rather than sell products, they need to be pro-active about it. That includes requiring retailers to present contracts at the time of sale.
filling the magenta cartridge on my Cannon 850 is the sloppiest damn job in the world and it takes two days for the crap to wash or wear off of my hands. What the hell kind of illegal activity is filling and ink cartridge? Illegal activities are s'posed to be fun! Sheesh!
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Gee, I wonder why no-one wants to make a killing by simply making a good printer and supplying cartridges and/or refilling kits and ink at reasonable prices...
And you buy into this reasoning? What a smokescreen! After all, Lexmark is only asserting that they've given you a discount.
In my primitive understanding (as a commoner), when I buy something, generally speaking, I have the right to use it in any way I see fit (with a few notorious exceptions, e.g. software, for which I supposedly buy a "license", rather than actually owning it outright). But with the above reasoning, a manufacturer can change any product at all into one of these special-case products, where your use of the product is restricted:
A. Suppose item price is $N. Change the price to $N = $M - $D, where $D is a fictional discount.
B. Claim that, in consideration of $D, the purchaser agrees to onerous term T.
Presto! With this disingenuous reasoning, what we commoners have, until now, been able to take for granted about our rights, can suddenly be stripped away arbitrarily.
Courts are supposed to be smarter than that -- they're to see thru such specious reasoning.
Injucted is not a word, it is a misspelling, either related to injunction or inject.
Injuncted is sometimes used, as is Injunctioned rarely, but they are both ugly backformations and by far the most common form is Enjoined .
How do you think there's non-oem parts?
Freediag is an obd2 scan/monitoring program. It requires an interface to connect to the serial port. I got mine from here. Although I haven't actually gotten it to working (no response from ecu).
With such a scanner, one can read trouble codes or constantly monitor almost every piece of data the ecu sees.
It's annoying, but this is the same Ninth Circuit Court whose rulings are often overturned on appeal by the Supreme Court.
Ooh. Enjoined. I knew there was a real word for that, but it was escaping me.
Can't spell "punitive". Suggest YOU try again.
Every sperm is saaaacred, every sperm is great,
And if you dare to waste one, God gets quite i-rate...
Sheesh. What is the world coming to...
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
A coakroach ?
Well, where was that ? I believe you, really, but I never saw any myself and I've been living in France about 20 years...
Anyway bottled water is kind of a luxury, people buy it because they can, not because they need to.
Most people I know drink from the tap and I drink both from the tap or botteled water.
Thing is, water has its particular taste and you get used to it, I prefer it from the tap (depending on where I am) than from several brands of bottled water for instance, but I preffered it from botteled water than from any tap for those other brands...
Now that one of their decisions will effect soccer moms...
It's my only real grammar peeve...that needs to read Now that one of their decisions will affect soccer moms...
effect - 1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
affect - 1. To have an influence on or effect a change in.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Wrong, usualy the cartriges in a new printer are half empty.. so you may get a better deal buying their shit cartriges.
1.) Buy a software with a particularly outrageous EULA.
2.) Let a minor install it. Have witnesses that can testify under oath that a minor accepted the EULA. Record the installation procedure with a camcorder. Do everything humanly possible to ensure that it can be proven without doubt that a minor installed the software and agreed to the EULA.
3.) Do everyhing with the software that the EULA doesn't permit. Make sure that the software's manufacturer notices. Continue until they drag you to court for violation of the EULA.
4.) Point out that you never accepted the EULA. Produce the evidence gathered in step 2.
5.) ???
6.) The BSA lobbies for a new law that makes it illegal to use software you haven't installed yourself.
Okay, maybe this is not that good an idea after all...
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Wikipedia's article on the Ninth Circuit claims that the Ninth Circuit covers 20 percent of the population of the United States. And in this press release about a plan to reorganize the Ninth Circuit:
I thought this was a discussion on inkjets.
No, it really does not mean that GM can stop you getting your car serviced elsewhere. What it means is that if they give you a big discount on condition you agree to have it serviced at the dealer, and you accept the discount, they can hold you to it. Very different.
who is going to get caught refilling an ink cartridge anyway? most ink refill kits work for 2-5 different types of ink cartridges, and really, who's going to run around searching everyone's personal printers for refilled cartridges.
it's just another greedy move by these companies because they know that they are overcharging for their ink cartridges. if they were selling them for a decent price they wouldn't have to take these measures because people would buy their ink cartridges anyway.
This is exactly the defect in other laws like 508; if we build software, and make it so you *CAN* access it via our uber-1million dollar-super interface software, we've make it 508 compliant! Now just because you don't want to spend that money, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and we can demonstrate it can be accessible, so you're just being stingy. Pony up and buy our accessible software!
~Gildas
Let me explain to you about "spring water" oh thou naive one ... the tap they get it out of is way bigger than yours, but sourced from the same pipeline!
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
More importantly, they can't prove you did. They could only search your home but for that they'd need a search warrant and they can't get that just on a hunch.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I welcome this kind of behaviour: Lexmark don't have a killer product or monopoly on printers, so if they so desparate want to lose their market share, I say let 'em! Really, I believe that this is a free world, and lexmark should have every right to go out of business if they want to.
The cockroach was in a hotel in Dieppe.
Mind you, this was almost exactly 20 years ago, so maybe it predates your experience of France. And I've been back to France since (not Dieppe) and seen no further cockroaches, so maybe they're gone now!
But still, I'm surprised by your comment about bottled water being a luxury. You must agree that French hypermarchés sell a shitload of bottled water. In the UK, it's simply not purchased in the same volume.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Eric Smith wrote:
Individual users are definitely not what Lexmark has in mind. The aim is to go after remanufacturers (who refill and resell cartridges), makers of 'compatible' cartridges or refill kits that are specifically designed or advertised for refilling Lexmark cartridges.
Lexmark, like some other big corporations, appears to feel that they have a natural right to a certain level of sales and that this right should be guaranteed to them by law. The mechanism they have found to protect this "natural right" is patent law, raising the question of whether the features in question are genuinely innovative or necessary, or are merely distinctive characteristics that Lexmark can use to support their claim: patent law used to protect profits, rather than innovation.
The battle over ink cartridges is particularly vicious because printers are sold as 'loss leaders'. The hardware is sold below cost because the manufacturer aims to make its profit on the sale of overpriced consumables. Anything that cuts into their revenue stream from the consumables threatens their whole business model. The same kind of model is at work in the sale of mobile phone services, which is why high-tech phones are given away to users who agree to be locked into a lucrative service contract.
It's curious how accepting we have become of this kind of pricing model, which is anti-competitive at heart and firmly stacked in the manufacturer's favor. Would we buy a new car if we were contractually bound to refill it with gas from Exxon and subject to legal penalties if we ever dared to pull into a Texaco?
Then your buyer did nothing intentionally wrong, but you've violated your agreement with Lexmark.
I had a read of the judgement PDF - Lexmark's 'agreement' looks like they're selling the ink, but only renting out the cartridge to the first buyer. Somewhat like a rental car rented out with a full tank of petrol. The judge probably based his judgement on whether or not the buyer should have known this condition at the point of sale.
But determining under what conditions "the buyer should have known" can a slippery slope. What happens when companies start reducing the font size of the conditions (cue the rumbles from greedy marketing types)? Customer may simply snip products out of packaging and not know they're liable for conditions. What about elderly grandpa with his poor eyesight? When is he liable for thr conditions?
With software EULAs at least, the software can presents an arbitrarily complex GUI construct on screen. For instance, this could forces a user to click a radio button for assent, and then click 'Yes'. With physical products though, most companies use el'cheapo stickers, sometimes in an very small font. I think this is not acceptable - is elderly grandpa liable when he ripped the packing open? Instead, it should be a rigid plastic box with a plastic Agree/Reject slider (preferably of standard size and braille markings) that allows the user to break the seal and unlatch the product?
Best of all is presenting the conditions at the point of sale, and requiring a signature then -- like done with rental cars -- I'd rather this be the law.
Probably NOT.
In fact your bottle probably says that it should not be refilled without agreement by the licence holder of the brand. This of cource is to avoid restaurants from filling Evian bottles with tap water, but I pretty sure this lexmark ruling could lead it to apply to personal refills too.
Any truth to the rumour that Lexmark hopes to use Blu-Ray in their new laser printers (and possibly inkjets too!), and the laser will be part of the cartridge?
I LOVE cross-posting!
.
- aqk
F U
but if the terms of their warranty require that it must have a cartridge when you need a reparir, you have to either buy a new one or let them find out
aah, but you were just a few feet and an hour apart when you killed the dog, and the death of his nonexistant dog caused him severe mental distress, reducing his ability to preform his duties and costing lexmark potentially millions of dollars. And no court ever throws a case out when it involves severe emotional distress.
> They have "Refill only with Kikkoman" printed on them. I've been tempted
> every time I see those to sneak a few drops of La Choy soy sauce into one
> of them
Refilling Kikkoman bottles with La Choy would be like refilling Dr. Pepper bottles with flat off-brand diet cola. Kikkoman makes soy sauce, as in, sauce made from soy beans, which has a distinctive soy flavour. La Choy makes colored saltwater, which does not taste anything like soy sauce.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
People buy bottled water in London for the bottle. It can get hot walking around; the authorities recommend you carry a bottle with you. And then it gets confiscated whenever you go into a nightclub, so you have to buy a new bottle the next day.
Nothing is going to change until we shoot the bastards!
Andy Out!
I haven't read the actual court decision myself, but I did RTFA, and someone in the FA's comment chain claims he did read the court decision and that it means this:
================
The Ninth Circuit's opinion concerns Lexmark's "Prebate" program, in which customers are given a $30 discount on their printer cartridge in exchange for their agreement to return the used cartridge to Lexmark when they are done with it. That's an enforceable contract, plain and simple. Customers had the option of paying $30 more for a cartridge, without being obligated to send it back to Lexmark when they were finished with it. The Ninth Circuit simply held that, in exchange for paying less for the cartridge, customers could be contractually bound to return it to Lexmark.
==================
Now, my question involves the part about being "obligated to return the cartridge to Lexmark when they were finished with it":
Okay, so the consumer gets paid in advance, in exchange for their promise to return the cart to Lexmark, and that's not a problem in itself -- but what if I'm not "finished with it" until after I've refilled it 3 or 4 times? is that prohibited in Lexmark's contract?
[Personally I think it's nothing but another attempt at contactually-enforceable lock-in by Lexmark, but the implications could be very far-reaching. And thanks to past similar horseshit from Lexmark, I specifically recommend that my clients avoid Lexmark products entirely.]
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Someone put up a Wikipedia article on the decision under debate:
m anufacturers_Association_Inc._v._Lexmark_Internati onal_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Cartridge_Re
Tho I'll be the first to agree that Lexmark's only interest here is consumer lock-in, by any means possible.
This sort of crap is why 1) I neither buy nor recommend inkjets, and 2) I specifically recommend *against* Lexmark (and would so recommend even if their printers weren't the cheapest pieces of shit I've ever seen).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If you use old envelopes to write down phone numbers ...
If you use refrigerator magnets anywhere but on your private, non-commercial refrigerator ...
If you reuse a bag from the supermarket as a trash bag ...
They're coming after you next!
Well, I would say that until the Feds start posting cameras in everyones house it's okay to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home.
I know this reply is a bit late, but here's my two cents.
When I was in law school* we had a thing called unilateral contracts. The difference between a unilateral contract and a bilateral contract is the negotiation phase.
For example, if I were to go to the Slashdot editors and say "I want you to stop posting dupes and you want free goodies. Let's make a deal," then we would negotiate a bilateral contract. On the other hand, if I sent out an email to all slashdot editors "Free iPod to anyone who can go a week without posting a dupe", then although they didn't discuss with me their intention of trying, they can come to me at the end of the week and say "look, no dupe! Gimme my iPod!"
Now, if Lexmark wants to cover their item with shrinkwrap licensing, then it's pretty reasonable of them to do so. You "buy" a membership to a gym (well, other people do... trust me, I've been inside a gym a few times!) and with that comes their usual list of rules and regulations. The cartridge is a physical object. It's yours. But you only get it if you agree to do anything else in the contract of sale. In effect, you're buying the cartridge for "$35 plus a promise you will recycle it in this manner".**
The biggest legal obstacle is the fact that you probably bought the cartridge from wal-mart or dick smiths or your local newsagent, rather than lexmark. But now that intellectual property is involved, they can say they swapped their IP for your promise to behave in a particular way. And that the contract was written on the package.
Oddly enough, you can (In Australia, anyway) also include another contract as one of the items on the primary contract. Lexmark could conceivably come up with some loophole so that you bought the cartridge for "$35 plus the following promises to Lexmark".**
In conclusion, you do NOT need negotiation for there to be a contract. You just need for each party to gain something. And you can't change a unilateral contract by crossing out part of it and signing it, so don't try. There are so many ways for Lexmark to get away with something like this - not least because the judges want them to! And judges have a tendency to make up their mind first and then choose the legal arguments.
*Law school was fucking boring and I left to pursue full-time astrophysics. BUT, it was the best law school in Australia, and I got in over half a semester of contracts! Everything but the finer points.
**I made up a number
*#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
rant
It has gone from "The customer is always right" to "The corporation will tell us what is right, and if you disagree we will have laws created to enforce it! Or we will use an existing unrelated law to threaten you knowing that you cannot afford to defend yourself in our legal arena." Please don't get me wrong, I am not against government, corporations, or even lawyers (well....that last one might be a bit of a stretch ;) ). What bothers me is that we are stuck in this system that in its best form is pretending to serve the people, but giving us no real choice. Sure I can choose to not fly on an American airline because they think my cigar clippers and lighter are a recipe for disaster. I can choose not to purchase Altiris software because of their affiliations with the SCO group. I can choose not to buy CD's because I think it is crazy that the RIAA is suing its customers.
I can choose this. I can choose this easily. But it feels futile. What does my one little drop in the hat amount to with these mega corporations.
Nothing, nada zilch. Not even noticeable. Perhaps when there are many people who feel strongly about issues they do notice the drop in sales, but perhaps they do not understand the reason.
I often read slash-dot comments where people say to stop complaining, and to speak with their wallets. We can choose to speak to the corporations directly by simply refusing to put our hard earned, over taxed incomes into coffers that are not representing our interests.
I hear this theme over and over again. So lets actually do it.
Lets create a site where consumers can come and discuss issues at hand. Can argue and debate in a free forum. Can hear a variety of opinions and see a variety of evidence. And then they can make decisions about where they want to spend their money. I want people to come and register. To start, participate in, and track boycotts of companies. I want people who are already boycotting companies to make this known. We don't all have to agree on every issue, but the people who do agree should feel free to join an existing boycott or to create a new one.
Lets create a site where the corporations can come and see just why their sales have dropped a large percentage during their 4th Quarter bonus deciding pre budget meeting preparations.
My web development skills don't go much past rant/rant (network/infrastructure guy)..but I have infrastructure. Fast internet, reliable servers. So, if there is anyone out there that can work with me to develop this kind of site, lets stop just bitching and bump it up a notch.
If a bunch of pissed of geeks can't get this going, then no one can.
Cheers,
CB
Punitive damages? Idiot.
I can't even imagine how much of my brain I'd have to disengage before I could make a completely absurd argument while calling someone else an idiot.
Punitive damages? Do you even believe yourself? I promised myself I wasn't going to reply, yet again, to the hurricane of retardedness in this thread, but you, sir, deserve a medal. Punitive damages.
If you go to Wikipedia and read their summary of the origin of the concept of "tortious interference", dating back to 1707, you will recognize how retarded your suggestion is. If I disrupt your ink cartridge refilling business, you can seek damages. If I happen to merely refill my own ink cartridges, you're a dipshit for thinking I owe you money, patent or no patent.
Anyway, happy Labor Day. You've made my day. The average level of insight has been dragged down by your three word post, making it that much easier to be a genius around here. Thanks.
Parts of the ruling make reasonable sense, but there's a huge leap from breach of contract to patent infringement that seems completely unjustified.
That hypothetical situation with Sony reminds me of how back in the late 60s or early 70s, when Magnavox released the original Odyssey video game console. The product bombed badly because the marketing was a bit misleading. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, but many potential buyers thought that the game would only work on Magnavox TV sets, which IIRC, were only sold through authorized Magnavox stores.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Except the print carts that come with printers are usually even smaller and less full than the default retail ones - 50% or 25% as full.
I do honestly think your plan is sometimes a good deal, but it is hardly at the ratios your post suggests.
In addition, you haven't accounted for the time value of money (ie, interest you would have earned on $43 for several months) or the value of your time for processing the rebate or engaging in so many sales. You also have to account for the fact that sometimes the rebate companies will defraud you, at a mimimum taking additional time and money.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
I seem to recall that one can patent either totally new ideas or the reusing of old products in a new way. So if the manufacturers of the ink cartridges say they can only be used once then, HEY - I just had an idea on a way to use an old product in a new way - refill the cartridge! How about somebody patent that? ;-)
I always have loved how that argument works.. how do you rob someone by not giving them something that isn't theirs yet, anyway? That's like saying growing your own food is the same as robbing the local grocery store...
:)
Really, in this case, all that is happening is that the printer manufacturers have backed themselves into a corner by not offering cheaper cartridges and/or ink refils of their own all along. And then they have the nerve to go and try to use the law to protect their own flawed way of trying to do business.
Which I suppose is also similar to the music 'industry', in that I think (although I don't know this for sure) that they generally charge quite a bit more than they need to for CDs, even considering a reasonable (as opposed to shamelessly large) profit margin. If they didn't charge so much maybe people would be less inclined to download music instead of buying it. Or like me, will be able to afford to buy music (I don't usually download music, but I don't often buy it either because my budget is fairly tight). Or maybe, if the publishing companies had been the first ones to offer music for download, nobody ever would have developed P2P networks in the first place
Here's one final thought... as far as I know (and again I may be wrong) it's the usual deal for an artist to make a relatively small percentage (as in less than 50%) of the profits from their own work, the rest of which goes to the publishing company. Now if people don't buy the music, who is it that's honestly 'taking money from the artist', the people who have not given what they never promised to give anyway, or the publishing company which siphoned off upwards of 50% of what actually *did* get spent?
Publishing companies have their uses, true, but really, I think they're far overgrown and in need of some taking down for everyone's good (including theirs.. we don't *need* so many people working for a publishing company now (since we have computers which simplify publishing), so why not have some of those people do other useful work like being a farmer or something?).
Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
...I was just out at Golden Corral and happened to notice the text on the bottom of my restaurant-issued, plastic, Coca Cola-branded, cup as I was walking down the hall. I turned it over because I wasn't sure what I was reading - was correct. It says, "For Single Use Only" on the bottom. WTF?! Plastic is good for 1,000 years and I'll refill it as many times as possible to make sure Mother Earth benefits from delayed disposal. The only reason that "warning" is there is so I would have to buy another drink or another bottle of water or even another ink cartridge to generate more revenue for the company. If they can't sell containers, they obviously can't sell ink, and you don't see me refilling my refills, now do ya?
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
Good points. And I think you're right, that this isn't about consumers, but rather about putting the refillers out of business.
And that part is a dangerous ruling, that hopefully will be overturned (anyone know if it's being appealed, or if it's dead-ended at the 9th Circuit Court?)
Side thought: what if these carts are refilled (for further use before the consumer is "done with them" and returns them per the contract) with ink that is marketed specifically as "NOT for Lexmark printers"?? (Which wouldn't be the first time that a product has been labeled with a contraindication to avoid lawsuits, even tho it works perfectly for that application.) IOW, can Lexmark use this to shut down sellers of refill ink labeled for other brands of printer?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"In the case of laser toner this would be limited by the drum to no more than 3-5 times"
are you sure thats true? where I work we go through about 10 cartridges every week for various printers. We then send them to a company which refills them. SOMETIMES we get a bad one where the drum has gone out on it, but they are really few and far between. I find it hard to believe that this company could make money if they had to throw out the carts and buy all new ones after just 3 uses.
we always get used cartridges back so they must come from somewhere. Havent baught a new cart in years here.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Parties have exchanged money and goods, with terms attached. There is almost no clearer case of 'contract' and 'due consideration' without getting the lawyers involved.
Go study contract law again. A contract consists of an agreement between two parties! If there is no "meeting of the minds", there is no contract. If the purchaser didn't consider the writing on the side of the box to be part of a legally binding contract, it's simply not. There's no reason why some random bit of writing on a box should count as a contractual agreement, unless clearly explained as an extra contractual burden before the point of sale.
Otherwise, I'd be legally required to "Let it Be", provide the record companies with "Strawbery Fields" (forever!), to "Think Different", to "be a Pepper, too", to "grab life by the horns", and a thousand other inane advertising jingles. I could be sued for turning the box the wrong side up!
With boxes often being transfered between multiple parties, it's not even clear who the writing on the box should apply to. Writing on a box clearly can't legally bind everyone who reads it! If, during transit, a shipper writes onto a shipment "Do not break down", it's an indicator to the shipping company that the shipping company must not separate the parcels during shipment. If the writing on the box is taken as a legal contract, the destination company can't legally open their own shipment.
People simply can't and don't treat random scribblings on boxes as statements of contract, because 99.9% of the time, they're not. And unless Lexmark was selling the products directly, it doesn't matter what terms of sale Lexmark put on the box, because the buyer doesn't have a contract with Lexmark! (S)he has a contract with the reseller, and Lexmark's terms apply to the reseller, not to the end buyer. If the reseller wishes those terms to be passed on to the end purchaser, he has a legal obligation to make those terms clear to the buyer before the sale. If he doesn't, he can't add new terms to contract later!
If the reseller doesn't negotiate any special conditiions, the entire sales contract sounds something like this:
"I'd like to buy this printer cartridge"
"That will be $10.50, sir!"( offer of terms of sale)
"Okay!"( agreement to terms, may be verbal, or implied by the next step )
The buyer hands over the money. ( buyer complies with terms of sales contract, as legally required )
"Have a nice day!" ( seller complies with terms of sales by allowing buyer to leave with goods, as legally required )
That's it. End of contract, unless something else was agreed to. If the seller wants to apply terms, he has to tell the buyer what the terms are; he can't just assume the buyer will guess, or read some jingle on the box, that may or may not even be legible.
--
AC
I've just checked out a couple of Lexmark ink cartridge boxes. They all state that the cartridge is "intended for single use only" but that box is made of 100% recyclable cardboard and some even say "please recycle". How is it that it is OK to reuse the box which most people throw away, but the cartridge which is monstrously less biodegradeable must be destroyed. Save the forest, burn Lexmark?
Can't get punative damages without actual damages. Try again...
well, that never stopped the **AA...
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I have an Epson R200, the color cartridges are not 55 each, they are about 15 each (5 total, one black) and this is at best buy.. of course you can buy generic cartridges for much less (i think we pay 30 bucks for all of them at one place we go to online...)
You can always argue "I would not print anything else if I did not refill the cartdrige -- so, I wouldn't buy their cartdrige anyway, so no economic loss to the patent holder." Remember, this is a poor country, and we're talking about your home printer here (your office printer is not "without commercial intent".)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Excellent post.