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.
I mean, who ever listens to those "one use only" instructions? Those condoms can last a long time.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Video Production Support
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?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Those tags are still there, and it was never illegal for the consumer to remove them. It was illegal for the retailer to do it, because they contained information that might be important to the consumer.
In other words, the "do not remove under penalty of law" on furniture tags were there for the protection of the consumer; shrink-wrap licenses and this variant are all about limiting the rights of the consumer.
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
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!
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.
Actually, they are moving toward this in a similar underhanded way. Here's is a related press release.
The "Right to Repair Act"
Your pickup engine has a minor problem, but the only clue is a cryptic "Check Engine" idiot light on the dash. The trouble could be as simple as a stuck PCV valve or faulty plug wire. It might be something more serious (read "costly") such as a confused computer control module, but without a way to read the engine diagnostic codes from the computers--and more importantly, to translate what the codes mean--even diagnosing the defect let alone performing do-it-yourself cost effective repair is impossible, and vehicle makers are downright stingy with the information. Even your local mechanic cannot get the information he needs; it is sealed inside the dealership repair shop--probably in a cipher lock safe.
There ought to be a law.
Well, they are working on one--the Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act.
Since the Act, HR2048, was reintroduced in Congress on May 3 by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), and 22 additional congressmen have signed on as co-sponsors in support of the bill.
HR2048 has garnered support and praise from many quarters, especially from the American Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA).
"We want to thank Representatives Barton, Towns, and Issa for spearheading this crucial piece of legislation that affects everyone who works in the aftermarket," said Kathleen Schmatz, President and CEO of AAIA. "The momentum in support of this bill is incredible as evidenced by the support of 22 additional congressmen. However, our work is just beginning. Based on the strong opposition that the car companies have been expressing on Capital Hill, we will need many more legislators signing on the bill to get it through during the current Congress."
The Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act is truly a bi-partisan bill. Of the 25 congressmen who currently support it, 12 are Democrats, 12 are Republicans, and one is Independent.
The legislation would that require car companies make the same service information and special tools available to independent repair shops as they provide to franchised dealer networks. Architects of the Right to Repair Act added new language to clarify that car company trade secrets are protected unless that information is provided to the franchised new car dealer. New language also provides more detail on the role of the Federal Trade Commission in enforcing the legislation.
"It's not about taking trade secrets and proprietary information from the car companies. These are clearly protected in the legislation," Schmatz said. "It is about fair trade and protecting consumer choice."
Independent repair shops and aftermarket accessory makers are not the only or even the targeted beneficiaries of HR2048. The language of the bill is clear that vehicle *owners* should have access to information whereby to affect repairs. One section states emphatically that vehicle owners should have access to information for "making, or having made, the necessary diagnosis, service, and repair of their motor vehicles in a timely, convenient, reliable, and affordable manner."
Here are some facts from AAIA:
Why This Bill Is Needed
Current automotive technology is being used to successfully "lock out" car owners from being able to repair and maintain their own vehicles. Modern automobiles contain many computers that control virtually every component such as the braking system, steering mechanism, air bags, ignition, and the climate control system.
Lacking the ability to "talk" to the car's computers, owners or their auto technicians cannot accurately diagnose and repair mechanical problems.
This means that later model cars will only be serviced and repaired at automobile dealerships, which makes shopping around for the best prices and most convenien
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Yes, only the original manufacturer is allowed to fill the bottle labeled "spring water" with tap water.
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.
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.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
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
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.
So sad to see that people don't know this stuff anymore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_sale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
some quotes of interest:
Contract formation: Generally, formation of a contract requires a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange and a consideration
Contrary to common wisdom, an informal exchange of promises can still be binding and legally as valid as a written contract. A spoken contract is often called an "oral contract", not a "verbal contract." A verbal contract is simply a contract that uses words. All oral contracts and written contracts are verbal contracts. Contracts that are created without the use of words are called "non-verbal, non-oral contracts" or "a contract implied by the acts of the parties."
If a contract is in a written form, then generally, you are bound by its terms regardless of whether you have read it or not (L'Estrange v. F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394). However, this is tempered by the exception that if the terms of the contract are misrepresented, then the plaintiff is unable to rely on the terms of the contract; in addition, the document must be contractual in nature (Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805).
An implied contract can either be implied in fact or implied in law. A contract which is implied in fact is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. For example, by going to a doctor for a physical, a patient agrees that he will pay a fair price for the service. If he refuses to pay after being examined, he has breached a contract implied in fact.
A contract which is implied in law is also called a quasi-contract, because it is not in fact a contract; rather, it is a means for the courts to remedy situations in which one party would be unjustly enriched were he or she not required to compensate the other. For example, an unconscious patient treated by a doctor at the scene of an accident has not agreed (either expressly or by implication) to pay the doctor for emergency services, but the patient would be unjustly enriched by the doctor's services were the patient not required to compensate the doctor.
And if that isn't enough, consider the situation when lexmark gives you a prebate. They are paying you (via a discount) for a service (the return of the empty cartridge) by taking the discount and failing to do so, you are doing the same thing as if a vendor took your money and didn't give you the product.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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/
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
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
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".