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.
"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"
The only thing it "infringes" on is their profits.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The Times paints it as the latest attack on ownership in the age of DRM.
Only nobles and lord own land peon.
Welcome to subscription model everything, aka the internet of things, web 3.0, cloud connected pillows, etc.
What you do not own, you pay for in some way. What you do own you collect on, and guess what, there are only a few owners.
Silence is a state of mime.
You dumb sonofabitch. Do you not know the difference between a corporate tax rate and how much a corporation actually pays?
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/0...
Corporations in the US pay about as much as Ireland, which is known for it's low corporate tax rate. And less than Hong Kong.
The difference between the corporate tax rate in the US and the corporate tax rates in the rest of the developed world is that the rest of the world actually means what they say. It's not just a dodge to make citizens feel like corporations are paying their fair share, as it is in the US.
You are welcome on my lawn.