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."

Comments

using other containers have same 'crime'?

[lecithin]

So can I still fill up used bottled water bottles with my tap water if it is labled '1 liter'?

Gotta Love The 9th Court Circuit of Hell...

[__aaclcg7560]

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.

Re:How will anyone know?

[Paolo DF]

they'' sue the refill manifacturers, so you won't be able to buy them anymore...

Re:You lose.

[Raul654]

"Therefore, if this policy will prevent me from refilling a certain brand of ink cartridge, I will simply buy a different brand."
 
...And when everyone starts doing this?

Yeah yeah yeah

[Lord Kano]

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

Re:using other containers have same 'crime'?

[Eric Smith]

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.

I OWN the cartridge, not RENT / LEASE it

[SpecialAgentXXX]

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."

Re:I OWN the cartridge, not RENT / LEASE it

[meringuoid]

However, in this case, It's my property.

It's your lump of plastic and assorted trace metals. However, it's their patented technology which you need a licence to use legally.

You know, there was once a time when most people owned very little. The average European owned no land; instead he rented patches of land from the local lord, and paid most of his produce to that lord in rent.

We're heading back that way now. It's not land any more, no, it's intellectual property. The way things are going we geeks won't be free to invent as we always have done any more; we'll have to pay massive dues to our feudal overlords who own patents on everything.

The best thing is, the libertarians won't care. It's not the government that's pissing all over us, it's private enterprise. And that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

Re:Only a matter of time.

[arose]

Easy, they saw that they can get away with software so they will press along with hardware as far as they can get.

I'm curious...

[Spad]

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".

Obviously not a crime

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Read the opinion please.

[bigdavex]

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.

Maybe they should stop doing that.

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.

If the business model isn't working, Lexmark doesn't necessarily have a legal recourse.

Some Sense

[Warthog9]

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.

Whatever happened to the basic theory of purchase?

[Ignorant Aardvark]

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?!

Re:Read the opinion please.

[makomk]

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.

And why can't they achieve this by posting you a discount coupon (off the cost of a new cartridge) for every returned empty cartridge? Hell, it'd actually give people a real financial incentive to actually return the cartridges, unlike the current scheme (which relies on people being honest/gullible). As it is, I bet half the people never return the cartridge.

Madness

[aussersterne]

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.

Re:Madness

[DavidTC]

Erm, I don't know in what universe you live in, but old automobiles are in fact one of the best supported 'old things' out there. You can purchase 80 year old vehicles and buy parts for them. Try getting parts for a ten year old TV or a 30 year old fridge.

Granted, sometimes it's not the original manufacturer, but I fail to see why they should have to step in when the aftermarket is doing so well. (Assuming the original manufacturer still exist, that is.)

And one reason people throw away cars in instead of repairing them is that they get better. Use a lot less resources, for one thing. Pollute less. (Do you know that something like 80% of all car pollution is made by 20% of bad cars?) And, no, we can't upgrade existing ones in place. Some parts we can, like radios and seats, but you can't go out and purchase a part that gives you 4 more mpg.

And cars end up in scrapyards, where they are stripped of parts so other cars can remain on the road. They are then crushed, the cubes are shipped and melted down, and the metal used for other purposes. We are not burying cars in landfills. In fact, landfills do not accept cars. As scrapyards will take any broken car for free or the cost of a tow, though, that's not important. (You'd have to have it towed anyway.)

And cell phones aren't 'artificially locked', whatever that means. They aren't 'supported' for repairs, because it's idiotic to have a support market for something that costs 30 dollars and is made of plastic. There isn't 'cheap kitchen chair' support, or 'tennis shoe' support either. It's nothing to do with society, it's the fact many things cost more to repair than they cost to replace.

But cell phones can easily be transfered as long as they are good. I can make my cell account use any phone by filling out a simple field on my provider's web site with the number thingy on the phone. I've had three so far, the second two as upgrades from people who purchased better phones.

Ergo, your two examples are idiotic. There might be a good example of what you are talking about, but neither cell phones or cars are it. Refridgerators might be a good example, do some research there. Or stereos.

Re:Remove Lexmark from CUPS

[Dan Farina]

Because the best thing we could do to bolster adoption of superior operating systems is intentionally cripple hardware support.

Cut off my other leg already.

Yet Another Misleading Slashdot Headline

[Trick]

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.

Another Stupid Slashot 'Story'

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

America

[sigaar]

Every time I read something like this I'm more and more glad that I don't live in the U.S.

Where do you live?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confident I can point out something retarded about your country as well.

Please lord let this stand

[BlueHands]

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.

Re:using other containers have same 'crime'?

[back_pages]

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.

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.

Re:Only a matter of time.

[siggy_lxvi]

This bill is a great idea. I'm writing my congrescritters right now asking them to support this, and to try to enact a similar bill for computer hardware. I encourage others to at least write their own critters about this one.

Re:Read the opinion please.

[mellon]

Seems like a stupid business model. Why not just say "we charge you full price, but if you bring the cartridge back when you are done with it, we'll give you a $30 rebate on the next cartridge"? That would accomplish the same purpose, but would give the customer an incentive to cooperate, rather than creating a situation where Lexmark feels some weird obligation to sue the customer for not complying.

Shrinkwrap "Licenses" are Evil

[ewhac]

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

Re:You lose.

[KillShill]

"Getting down to ownership; if I buy something, I guess it's not really mine, eh?"

only if you let them get away with this criminal behavior.

we need to stop baa-baaing and get some tar and feathers and run these bitches out of town. or at the least, revoke their business licenses.

Re:Misleading and misunderstood, as usual

[Spad]

Which contractual agreement is that? I didn't sign anything, or even tacitly agree to any terms.

Now if they sold the catridges with a deal whereby if you return them to Lexmark you get a rebate, then that's fine, but this so-called "prebate" has (had) no basis in law and was just Lexmark relying on people being well behaved and returning the cartridges.

Misleading Blurb

[Sparr0]

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.

Re:Please read ruling before commenting on it.

[Waffle Iron]

These are people who took the money, then refused to do what they'd promised to do.

Opening a box that you own is not a promise.

If you read the actual decision

[callipygian-showsyst]

it seems to indicate that, as far as the "patent" issue is concerend, it's only about commercial remanufacturers:

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.

Re:Misleading and misunderstood, as usual

[LWATCDR]

Frankly I wish that it had been ruled down just because it is basically none enforceable.
If I buy it with cash and then toss it how will I get caught?
This is just a tricky way to shut down companies that re manufacture ink cartridges.
As you said the cartridges are identical. The companies can now be sued if someone sends in one those one use cartridges and they do not catch it.
It is very sneaky to say the least.

Re:You lose.

[ScrewMaster]

Actually, people talk all the time about "voting with your wallet" and all that but that rarely works unless you can create a groundswell of public support that even a Presidential candidate would envy. And it only works for a while because we have short memories. Short of that, there are only a couple of tried-and-true methods that can be used to influence corporate behavior: lawsuits, and public embarrassment. Those two are often intertwined.

Ass-Backward

[IHateUniqueNicks]

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?

Scissors beat paper...

[mbius]

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.

Re:Please read ruling before commenting on it.

[gpw213]

If you don't want to be bound by these terms, don't participate in the program.

This presumes that there will always be an option, and that they will continue to also offer their products without the restrictive "contracts", but nothing obligates them to do so.

I have no problem with Lexmark's "prebate" program per se. I have an issue with allowing them to print some mumbo-jumbo on the side of the box, and then call that a legal, enforcable contract. If their program were a normal, after-the-fact rebate, or if one had to sign a contract at the cash register to get the discount, I would have no problem with that being legal. (Although I suspect signing contracts to get the discount would scare a lot of people off.)

ACRA (the company that filed suit) contended, among other things, that the printing on the box could not be construed as a legal contract. The court said it could. I consider this another step down the slippery slope of eroding consumer rights with more and more restrictive "contracts" and "licenses" for things that used to be simple purchases.

At this rate, soon you won't be able to own anything.

Re:Remove Lexmark from CUPS

[Gleng]

Who's going to be more hurt by that action? Lexmark or some poor sod trying to set up his printer on an operating system that no longer has support for it.

A better course of action would be to just get people you know to never, ever buy a Lexmark printer.

Mythical paperless office

[chill]

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

Re:Contract law...

[Pig Hogger]

that's the beauty on the juridic system : you can be two playing at being idiots...

But that does not prevent the idiot with the most money to spend on lawyers from winning...

Refills are a bad idea period.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Contract law...

[arminw]

.....The type found in an ELUA is what's called a "Contract of Adhesion"......

A mouse click EULA or any other agreement is only enforceable if it can be proved WHO the parties thereto are. Nobody can ever prove in court WHO clicks a mouse or opened a package. Also the person cannot be a minor who is not allowed to enter into any kind of legally binding contract. All those "agreements" are not worth the paper they are printed on when push comes to shove in a court case. Just because a package was opened or a mouse was clicked does NOT establish the identity of BOTH parties. There cannot be an agreement unless it can be proved WHO is agreeing to what and that has to be at least TWO parties. I'd like to see anyone prove the identity of a mouse clicker or package ripper unambiguously. That is why in important agreements we have things notarized or at the very least affirmed with a written signature.

Re:Only a matter of time.

[arminw]

....Tell me why the home user should be buying inkjets....

Just after taking a few pictures at home of friends or relatives, it is very nice to be able to give them a picture or two without leaving home to run to Walmart or such. $3+ gas prices is another reason to be able to print pictures or other color documents right at home. Some people may also want to snail mail pictures to older relatives or friends who have never touched a computer and likely never will, such as my mother for example.

Re:How exactly is this patent infringment?

[Lehk228]

suprisingly enough canon inks are usually sanely priced and... gasp... the printers are slightly more expensive for the same quality... it's almost as if they wanted to sell their products like normal products rather than a mini monopoly meant to gouge customers

pretense

[phriedom]

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?

Re:using other containers have same 'crime'?

[bev_tech_rob]

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...

Re:Mod Parent WRONG

[Chagrin]

No, you're wrong. Anonymous Coward is right.

The courts have ruled that the patent owner has full control over how their patent is used regardless of "first sale". The proper term you're looking for is "exhaustion", but again it doesn't apply here.

In the United States, patent is a statutory right that grants the patentee the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling a patented invention

Re:I code Lexmark replacements chips

[ajs318]

In some regimes, ones with complicated tax laws, energy recovery isn't automatically counted as recycling. Otherwise a company could spin off the department which heats its buildings as a concern in its own right, signing over all boilers, radiators, pumps, thermostats and so forth to the new company; buy the usual amount of heating fuel; immediately declare it waste {since the original company has no boilers of its own} and pay the former heating department to "recycle" the "waste" heating fuel. The original company, meanwhile, claims back any taxes it paid on the fuel, and the heating company doesn't owe tax since it is burning waste products -- which do not attract the same taxes as the fossil fuels they embarrassingly resemble. And the heating company's figures are carefully massaged so as to keep the company in the lowest possible tax band.

That's what you get for having broken tax regimes ..... it's the equivalent of making it an offence to sell bodily waste products lest they be used for fraudulent purposes. You need to keep adding dafter and dafter laws to prop up one daft one.

Now, stuff like disposable nappies {I personally would favour a hard per capita limit -- or should that be per fundamens?} and aluminised mylar crisp packets can only feasibly be recycled by burning them for the stored energy. But I am still tempted to think it should be kept as a very last resort.