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

You lose.

[mfh]

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.

So much for the "doctrine of first sale"

[Eric Smith]

The doctrine of first sale normally means that the first unrestricted sale of a particular device embodying a patent "exhausts" the patent-holders control over the use of the patent in that particular device. In other words, once you buy a DVD that the manufacturer has licensed for the MPEG patents, the MPEG patent holders can't later tell you that you are not allowed to use the DVD player to watch MPEG content on Thursdays, or that you're not allowed to resell the player.

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.

Here we go again...

[Nogami_Saeko]

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.

Re:Only a matter of time.

[tonsofpcs]

Umm, yes you can, you just cannot distribute it in its new form. Anyway, the one-time-use is fine, you cannot remanufacture their cartridges. But you can refill them, as long as you keep the cartridge in your printer, right? I mean, you're only using the ink once, and you are only using the plastic container once, it's just a very continuous use, as long as you do not let it empty completely.

Re:using other containers have same 'crime'?

[Eric Smith]

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.

Wrong. There is no exemption for personal use. Here's what the law says:

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.

If you think there is some kind of personal use exemption, please cite the relevant U.S.C. section. There is a limited exemption for "experimental use", but not all personal use qualifies. For instance, if I refill a printer cartridge in a manner that would otherwise infringe the patent, but do it to experiment with refilling techniques, that's probably exempted. But if I refill the cartridge and use it to print my TPS reports, that is not.

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.

Contract law...

[da5idnetlimit.com]

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...