Slashdot Mirror
Why Patent Law Shouldn't Block the Sale of Used Tech Products
An anonymous reader writes: Lexmark is best known for its printers, but even more important to its business is toner. Toner cartridges are Lexmark's lifeblood, and they've been battling hard in court to protect their cashflow. The NY Times has published an editorial arguing that one of their recent strategies is bogus: making patent infringement claims on companies who refill used cartridges. Think about that, for a moment: Lexmark says that by taking one of their old, empty cartridges, refilling it with toner, and then selling it somehow infringes upon their patents to said cartridges. "This case raises important questions about the reach of American patent law and how much control a manufacturer can exert after its products have been lawfully sold. Taken to their logical conclusion, Lexmark's arguments would mean that producers could use patent law to dictate how things like computers, printers and other patented goods are used, changed or resold and place restrictions on international trade. That makes no sense, especially in a world where technology products and components are brought and sold numerous times, which is why the court should rule in favor of Impression." The Times paints it as the latest attack on ownership in the age of DRM.
Lawyer, maybe. Government, no. I just renewed my drivers license online. I pay my taxes online (income and real estate). I reserve a campground at the State Park online.
The last time I set foot in a government office, I didn't have to pick up a pen. There was a stylus to sign my name.
Maybe Chicago is more sophisticated than Rowan County, Kentucky, but government here is quickly shifting away from paper.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Capitalism/fascism is where the corporations own the state. Communism is where the state owns the corporations. The results are similar, even if their philosophy is opposite.
Learn to love Alaska