Slashdot Mirror
Patents Are A Big Part Of Why We Can't Own Nice Things (eff.org)
An anonymous reader shares an EFF article: Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could allow companies to keep a dead hand of control over their products, even after you buy them. The case, Impression Products v. Lexmark International, is on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who last year affirmed its own precedent allowing patent holders to restrict how consumers can use the products they buy. That decision, and the precedent it relied on, departs from long established legal rules that safeguard consumers and enable innovation. When you buy something physical -- a toaster, a book, or a printer, for example -- you expect to be free to use it as you see fit: to adapt it to suit your needs, fix it when it breaks, re-use it, lend it, sell it, or give it away when you're done with it. Your freedom to do those things is a necessary aspect of your ownership of those objects. If you can't do them, because the seller or manufacturer has imposed restrictions or limitations on your use of the product, then you don't really own them. Traditionally, the law safeguards these freedoms by discouraging sellers from imposing certain conditions or restrictions on the sale of goods and property, and limiting the circumstances in which those restrictions may be imposed by contract. But some companies are relentless in their quest to circumvent and undermine these protections. They want to control what end users of their products can do with the stuff they ostensibly own, by attaching restrictions and conditions on purchasers, locking down their products, and locking you (along with competitors and researchers) out. If they can do that through patent law, rather than ordinary contract, it would mean they could evade legal limits on contracts, and that any one using a product in violation of those restrictions (whether a consumer or competitor) could face harsh penalties for patent infringement.
Patents are also why we can own nice things.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The more it governs non-commercial activity the more it will be ignored. We are two generations in raising kids that think copyright is a joke and patents are mere excuses to sue.
If the Supreme Court rules against the patent-holder, they will still be allowed to use contract law to get what they want.
So, instead of selling ink cartridges at a 20% discount to customers who agree to "no reuse" terms, they will rent the cartridges and sell the ink, essentially offering a "cartridge and ink supply only" service contract.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's from the Electronic Frontier Foundation's web site, that's almost the equivalent of a "diplomatic passport" when it comes to Slashdot.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
No patent in the world can restrict me from doing what I see fit with the things that I own. At worst, when it comes to resale, it can only affect how I do it.
goodbye jiffy lube hello $60-$100 dealer oil change.
Just be lucky it's not a dealer with an $100 minute change for any service even just to get an estimate.
Look, if I offered to sell you a home, but after putting down a downpayment you read the contract and it turned out to be a hundred year lease, you would be damn upset.
But that's what the software people do. They are actually renting licenses with all sorts of secret provisions while the salesmen are using the word 'buy' or 'sell'.
Every time you 'buy a license', it is you RENTING a license. It may be a 'lifetime' license, but that is what it is.
The only people that actually 'buy' software or music are the people that buy the copyrights.
We need a simple law that clarifies this point. Out law the use of the words 'buy' or 'sell' when dealing with a license - including physical products that include a necessary license, such as those evil John Deere Tractors.
Then when some shmuck tries to sell a John Deere tractor, arrest them for fraud, as they are actually renting it to you for an unspecified amount of time. If they want to use the words 'buy' or sell', they have to include free-as-in-speech software on it. Otherwise, it is fraud, punishable by a fine.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Unfortunately it's still an issue. And it gets a bigger one every day.
Patents were supposed to spur innovation by giving inventors an incentive to show their inventions and how they work instead of guarding them as secrets, so that others could learn from it and use the information learned to create more while the original inventor can enjoy protection for his invention for some time. This has been perverted and warped to mean that non-inventions and trivialities are being patented to stifle competition and ensure that cornering markets becomes a reality.
This has many ramifications for both, customers and competitors. Yes, patents were supposed to grant you a monopoly for your invention for a certain time. What this has been turned into is that manufacturers use that lever to eliminate competition and keep people from actually owning what they buy. If you don't want to sell me something and only allow me to rent it, fine by me, but then call it RENT. With all the relevant obligations on your side that entails. But companies want their cake and eat it too, and that's simply not how our economy works.
If you deprive me of a right I have, I will take that right from you. By force if necessary. If I buy something from you, I own it. And rest assured, I will not only find out how to claim ownership over things I buy, I will do my best to inform anyone who wants to listen how they can wrest their property from your stranglehold.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
what about renting = the landlord pays for service and upkeep?
Will they be so willing to say you are just renting the software / car / device / etc?
If I don't own it then you can pay all associated recycling fees for the device, if it's left in places that are not appropriate you will be responsible for removal of it, if it's stolen you need to provide the replacement and you need to pay the insurance for it as well, since you own it, not me.
It doesn't get stolen from me, it gets stolen from you. Since I paid for the use of the product within a warranty period, you can ensure I have it for that time regardless what happens to it.
Sounds far fetched? So does the rest of the shit you guys are trying to do.
John Deere tractors are already there.
Pfft, that's old news. Try taking a BMW anywhere but the dealer. The damn thing can detect a non-BMW *battery* and lock itself out :/
The vehicle has to be serviced at the dealer or the warranty is void. Saw that one myself just recently.
There. I said it. Ok, that wasn't very deep was it...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Software is a written work like any other - it should be protected via time-limited copyright and that's it. This would go a long way to clearing the courts of patent trolls.
The world is much more than software. I've worked at startups with easy to copy products that took years to prove out. Everything is easy once you know the trick of how to do it,
How would this affect liability. If an owner uses a product in a way not intended by the manufacturer is the manufacturer liable for the damages? I'm not talking about product defects but the use of products not intended by the manufacturer, i.e. using a lawnmower as a hedge trimmer. It seems like there should be some kind of protection for the manufacturer in these cases. I'm all for using the product as you see fit as long as you don't come after the manufacturer when it cuts your dick off.
Guess what part gets replaced next.
So, essentially, "You have food, you have shelter, what are you complaining about? STFU!".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We need a simple law that clarifies this point. Out law the use of the words 'buy' or 'sell' when dealing with a license - including physical products that include a necessary license, such as those evil John Deere Tractors.
Then when some shmuck tries to sell a John Deere tractor, arrest them for fraud, as they are actually renting it to you for an unspecified amount of time. If they want to use the words 'buy' or sell', they have to include free-as-in-speech software on it. Otherwise, it is fraud, punishable by a fine.
We don't need an additional law for that, we just a need a judge and/or jury to decide that it counts as fraud.
difference is when you buy a house and screw something up it's on you to fix it yourself or pay someone. sometimes you might even get fined by your town or thrown in jail
with a lot of this stuff people buy and then break it with cheap supplies or bad parts and then run to the manufacturer demanding warranty service. i've used cheap off brand toner in the 90's and when i got rid of it my HP Laserjet printers suddenly stopped jamming every other day.
Would be nice to have a summary of what Lexmark were doing and how they're actually applying patent law to do so.
Mag-Moss: Learn it. Love it. Shove it down your lying dealer's throat.
While they are constantly trying to gut Mag-Moss and work around it with special tools that independents can't afford to stay up with, they still have zero legal power to void your warranty for having your car worked on by someone other than the dealer. They do, however, do an excellent job of convincing people that they can do it.
The other one they like to try is convincing you of is that your whole warranty is void because you made some modification (e.g. lowered suspension, replaced the radio, etc..).
So "you have better food and a nicer house than most others. Why do you want to own anything? STFU and consume more!"
Did I get it right now?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I do with it as I d*mn well please. If not, I just won't buy it!
Unfortunately it's still an issue. And it gets a bigger one every day.
You are correct, patents and copyrights are both problematic and will continue to be.
Lexmark used the DMCA several years ago to do the same thing against Static Controls and re-manufactured ink cartridges.
They lost then, now they are giving patents a try for the same thing.
If Lexmark wins, we all loose.
This will be just like John Deere is with their tractors, see the article titled "Why American Farmers are hacking their own Tractors" a couple of articles below this one. Spend 150K on a piece of Farm equipment that is not really yours, you are just renting it, if you use it for a purpose not authorized by them they will brick it.
Pretty soon Ford, GM et al will be claiming that the money you paid for that sporty CAR is only for the right to drive it a specific way, on roads they tell you can drive on and you must take the vehicle to the dealer for service since you don't really own it, you are just renting it.
Ever heard of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act? Per federal statute, if you provide a full warranty at all, you are not allowed to require servicing only at dealer facilities. If the warrantor disclaims coverage due to alleged improper parts or servicing, even self servicing, he must prove that the outside servicing actually caused damage.
That issue is already well covered by terms declaring that such use voids the warranty.
The remedy is in all our hands. Simply don't buy (or "buy") such products at all. The owners and managers of the corporations that sell them are in business for exactly one reason: to get as much of your money as quickly as possible, with an acceptably low risk of being imprisoned. (Technically known as "business").
If we all stopped buying Lexmark products we would soon be hearing less of this nonsense. And please don't tell me that all printer manufacturers (or even most of them) would join in solidarity with Lexmark. They are about as loyal to one another as a bunch of sharks.
"One thing more dangerous than getting between a grizzly sow and her cub is getting between a businessman and a dollar bill".
- Edward Abbey ("A Voice Crying in the Wilderness”)
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
A patent holder, trademark, copyright, or other intellectual property should have to pay an annual tax on that property as if it's an asset. This tax would allow the holder to self-determine the value of the asset (as the tax would be based on it's self-determined value) and thus set the min/max fines for infringement. If a company or person allows the tax to lapse, then the work should enter the public domain. That would do two things 1) fully fund (at least) intellectual property courts, and 2) discourage long term holding of less valuable intellectual property.
Capitalism can become a kind of disease. Just like cancer, capitalism tries to expand its domain and take over everything that it touches. So here we have capitalism using patents to try to restrict the degree of ownership that a purchaser is allowed. The medical industry takes this sort of thing to new depths. The current Hep- C drug costs $80,000 in the US for the usual course of treatment. In India the identical drug costs $200... The fact that people in the US die for lack of that drug does not seem to bother the medical industry one bit. That is what patents and capitalism can do for you.
That's the only valid response to this whole subject. I buy something, it's MINE. Unless I'm reverse-engineering it to copy it and sell the copies, the manufacturer should stay the hell out of it. This applies to everyone across the board, including software (I'm looking at YOU, Miscreant-o-soft; get your dirty little fingers out of our computers, NOT YOURS!). How many of you are aware that farmers who own John Deere equipment are not allowed to service and repair them themselves, for instance? Auto manufacturers would love legal precedent like this, essentially putting a lock on the hood of your car or truck, and suing you if you so much as changed the oil without taking it to an 'authorzied service center' (extreme example, yes, but don't think they wouldn't welcome it). So far as selling something of mine to someone else: also nobodys' damned business. Do any of you really think the police want to have their time and limited resources wasted because they have to have a 'Craigslist Squad' to track down people selling used electronics? Bah. All of this is just another symptom of 'capitalism gone bad'. Just like an otherwise benign micro-organism in your gut, you feed it the wrong things or too much of the right things, it grows out of control and becomes a health problem. Things like in TFA are exactly like that: corporate America has been fed an improper diet for too long and is now becoming malignant. Time for for some legal and/or legislative antifungal.
We've heard all the arguments for and against patents already.
The Supreme Court of the United States hasn't, and that's why this is a big deal.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
This is pretty much what turned me off on IP law in general.
Copyright law and Patent Law are part of a bargain, a deal made where in the general public gives up some fundamantal rights, such as the right to copy things, (which you had the right to do before copyright law limited your rights to do so).
The theory is that in exchange for giving up these rights, on a temporary basis, the good that comes from it is that the public gets access to a much larger library of public domain over time. That is literally the bargain. You give up your pre-existing rights to do what you want with your media and recordings and whatever, in the hope that in the longer term, more such works exist since creators have protection.
This bargain was always supposed to be two sided. You give up your right to copy and a fair bit of tax money that goes into enforcement, and in exchange, after a brief period, the works become public domain.
Look how that worked out. As soon as the public was locked into this deal, powerful IP mills started immediately eating away at their side of the deal, extending copyright duration into infinity, consolodating power, making it incredibly one-sided. At this point I'm willing to say that the old IP deals need complete cancellation, that replacing it with literally nothing would be better for the public.
Look, if I offered to sell you a home, but after putting down a downpayment you read the contract and it turned out to be a hundred year lease, you would be damn upset
Haha, are you making a subtle joke here? Because in the vast majority of this nation, this is literally in the small print of house sales and is actually how it works. If you're surprised at this, then take another look at your small print. :)
from the /. summary:
When you buy something physical -- a toaster, a book, or a printer, for example -- you expect to be free to use it as you see fit: to adapt it to suit your needs, fix it when it breaks, re-use it, lend it, sell it, or give it away when you're done with it. Your freedom to do those things is a necessary aspect of your ownership of those objects.
Yet, whenever AirbnB is discussed here, a significant contingent espouses precisely the opposite principle, that the owner should not be free to use as he sees fit.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Go talk to a lawyer. They will tell you that a) That's not how the law works. b) It works on a buyer be ware basis, c) it would have to be a Supreme Court judge to make it stick and d) laugh in your face.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
When was the last time Ford, Smith&Wesson or even a maker of ammunition were sued when someone was killed by their products?
This sig left unintentionally blank.
They'd be wary to say that you're renting. Renting entails that certain maintenance work has to be paid for by the owner.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You have a solid point. To add to what you say:
A) Patents are anti-capitalism. And so are similar IP issues, such as copyrights. Patents were created under mercantilism, and they were not for inventors, but for friends of the king. Later when capitalism came along, we needed some way to encourage invention in a free market society where competition was essential. They could have set up a simple 10% fee structure, but instead went for an unlimited patent system. Big mistake. But capitalism was strong enough to handle it in most of the early cases. But in time the patent holders expanded their power, particularly in life or death situations (pay what we demand if you want this life saving medicine - or die).
B) The world has changed significantly since those IP deals were created, speeding up. What used to take 10 years now takes 1. The real time that would be appropiate for those licenses is measured in more like 5 years, not 50. I.E. most of the honest profit is made in the first 5 years, after that it's dishonest prevention of innovation.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I've worked with lawyers enough already, thank you very much.
a) It depends on how the fraud laws are written. If the law says something like, "only the following specific things are fraud", then yes, it would require changing the law. If, however, the law is general, such as saying something like "any deception regarding the terms of a transaction", then that law can be applied to a case such as this one. To be honest, I don't care enough to look them up, and the specifics will vary by state anyway.
b) As far as I know, "buyer beware" is not a law. In fact, if that were the case, fraud wouldn't be illegal.
c) Maybe to make it a binding precedent across the entire country, but I doubt the Supreme Court would accept a case like this, so any lower court rulings would stand.
$100? Are you insane?
Volvo dealers charge about $400 for an oil change..
Patents also encourage the creation of that medicine in the first place. Don't forget that no company is going to invest billions in the research and development of a drug when the first buyer can simply pop the pill into a spectrum analyzer, figure out what's in it, and, because there's no patent protection, make their own without spending billions; which, of course, enables them to sell it for pennies, while the company that actually did the work must sell for dollars.
Does it suck that companies must charge a higher price to cover their R&D costs? Sure it does, but if their ability to recover those costs was not guaranteed, many fewer would bother. Do some companies abuse their monopoly position? Sure they do, but many also do not; it's not inherent in the position.
How does Roche ensure that they, at a minimum, recoup the billions they spend developing a new drug, absent a patent? One way would be to charge billions for the first pill; that way, when someone reverse engineers it to make their day-one generic, Roche has already recouped their costs and can afford to compete on price. Can you think of another way? And, if not, who do you think is going to pay billions for that first pill? I'd venture to guess, nobody; but your shortsightedness blinds you to reality.
All of that said, drug companies are scum and, really, the worst of the worst in this regard. Really, they're the only entities which worse represent the concept of the patent than patent trolls.
Shortening patent terms to a year or so, as is more in line with how long it takes to get a product to market today versus how long it took in 1790 when those terms were set, would alleviate that issue to a large degree.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
If people would stop buying tractors from them, John Deere would lose. There are at least a dozen other manufacturers to chose from.
The First Sale Doctrine was a legal ruling to prevent these kinds of restrictions to consumers of products under copyrights and/or trademarks. The basic concept is that once the product is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the product in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. Regarding trademarks, it immunizes resellers from infringement liability as long as the product has not been altered so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner.
But there is no legal precedent to patents. I think a good legal argument can be made that the First Sale Doctrine should apply to lawfully traded goods which are under patent.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Now you never fully own things. They are always co-owned by sellers/IP owners... You need to share your former rights with them. You must agree how will you share the thing you bought - if you want to use it, you can, if you want to fix it, only they can, if you don't need it then you must destroy it or return (you cannot resell many things like games and such)
You don't really own things anymore. Marx is half-happy because we are half-way there!
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
I'd patent 'the knife' and forbid everybody from wounding or killing somebody or themselves with it and I would sue everybody who cuts himself.
" I'm a wealthy individual in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Why is everyone always whining about being poor or wanting to do things cheaply? Gosh! "
- AC
My Toyota dealer charges $30. Comes with a pretty thorough inspection and a car wash. As far as I can tell, they haven't ever ripped me off. Didn't tell me my battery needed to be replaced until it was 8 years old and failed their load test. Offered to have a guy weld a hole in my exhaust for $200 rather than replacing the entire thing for 5-10x that much.
Not sure if all Toyota dealers are like this, or if I'm just lucky to have found a great one.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
True, but who's to say that Case or International Harvester or any other farm equipment maker isn't going to try the same thing as John Deere.
They may think John Deere got away with it, look at all the money we are leaving on the table and then go and do the same thing.
this discussion is about "patent licensing" creeping into sales of goods as a way for seller to retain control over sold products.
Yeah, but I think the word is 'lease'.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We need a simple law that clarifies this point. Out law the use of the words 'buy' or 'sell' when dealing with a license
I disagree. We need to revise copyright law and adopt more of a copyleft law system. Copyrights do exist for a very necessary reason. If you are willing to invest time and money in making and delivering a product that people want, by all means, you should have a certain right to make back that investment and profit on your product. Nonetheless, copyrights should have a certain timelimit that runs out within a generation unless significant innovation by the copyright holder can be shown to retain that copyright; and no remastering every couple of years does not count.
A society is strong when people are able to act freely in their innovation and creativity. Locking everything down assures that only a few are allowed to rise to the top, which is why they like it that way.
True, but renting is the word that best comes to mind to describe what is happening.
It is not really a lease, as when the lease is up you return the item or vacate the property.
The whole point is that what Lexmark and John Deere are both saying is that you do not own what you bought and paid for they do.
In the case of Lexmark they are using patents in an attempt to circumvent existing law.
John Deere is using the DMCA in the same perverted way Lexmark did.
"Why not both?"
Because we live in nations under the rule of law, we can impose reasonable restriction on those who seek to profit from our vast array of shared resources and capital.
The right to own and repair ones' property shall not be infringed. John Deere shall not impose upon owners, and will honour warranty obligations as required by law. Competitors shall be allowed to thrive, and service all hardware and software.
If after all of that consumer protection you still have a problem with John Deere, then you can take your business elsewhere.
But the two options are not mutually exclusive.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
In the US, if you still subscribe to the Declaration of Independence, these patent law findings potentially infringe on the 'pursuit of happiness' to tinker and modify, so long as they aren't infringing on the personal rights of others. If these are indeed, "unalienable Rights," then even due process shouldn't be able to easily wipe them away.
I'm probably wrong from a legal perspective, but it sounds like the 'right' answer to me.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
If the law supports restricting my right to repair, modify, and re-purpose items which I have purchased with my own money, then SCREW THE LAW. If I bought it and paid for it, then, short of using it for the purposes of harm or fraud, I'll do whatever the fuck I please with it, and I'll move heaven and earth to repair it myself if I'm so inclined, regardless of any "agreements" to the contrary forced upon my by evil slime buckets such as John Deere. Piss on them, and piss on any lawmakers who support them. May they all rot in hell.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Look, if I offered to sell you a home, but after putting down a downpayment you read the contract and it turned out to be a hundred year lease, you would be damn upset.
Dunno about America, but in the UK that's exactly what does happen, and nobody is particularly upset. I "bought" my house on a Leasehold basis; after 125 years, ownership reverts to the Freeholder (or, more likely, the lease is extended for a fee). The property was described as "For Sale", but with "Leasehold" prominently displayed on the advert. I was happy enough to go through with it, because although it won't increase in value as fast as a Freehold would, that difference was priced in to the initial "purchase" price. Nobody has any problem describing that as a "sale", and it's certainly not fraud; it's just a different type of contract. I guess technically what was sold was not the property, it was the lease contract to the property. But if both parties are fine with the arrangement, what's the problem?
-- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
The problem is, does screaming legalese and acts of Congress when you're standing there in the dealership to pick up your car (late for daycare pickup or something) and some low-wage flunky is telling you that you owe $1,787 because the repair isn't covered by the warranty really get you very far?
Sure, you might be *right* but they can say no, not give you your car back until you pay, and generally make your life miserable until you sue them and then they can drag that out until it costs you 10x what the invoice was.
I recently had some work done where the invoice exceeded a written estimate by 20% and explaining the fact that such an overage is illegal in this state really was not effective. They were literally more afraid of me screaming on social media or disputing the charge on my card than they were in breaking the law.
The legalese is great idea, but unless you can call the cops and get somebody arrested for violating consumer protection laws, the imbalance between a large business and the average consumer is so great that its almost like having no protection at all.
Honda dealers in Tucson Arizona were like this too. Then I moved to California and, well, let's say that the dealers were rip-off artists. It varies by state, but yeah, some are pretty competitive.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
One problem with making a new product is the patent searches. You have to try and locate any potential patents you may be infringing before a product reaches the market place to protect from future infringement issues. The catch of course is you may still be infringing something you missed, and hit up for damages. It is PIA process.
My concern is if patents can be extended to control end users then how is a purchaser to know they are at risk of this? A buyer of printer is not going to do a patent search on a printer as it too much work to to evaluate if patents may apply to their potential purchase and if it could be used in this way. Even if you were to do this you could still be at risk of missing something. I just can't see any way this could be reasonable. There is just too many ways this could be abused and companies like Lexmark and HP have already shown they see no limits to how they control consumables purchases.
Unfortunately it's still an issue. And it gets a bigger one every day. ..... {standing on soapbox} blah, blah, blah...
Well spoken, but doesn't apply to my original comment that this submission is not news and is an opinion piece that only generates arguments between people, thus it's flamebait. I am not passing judgment on any specific opinion, just that this article should have never made it to Slashdot "news." No useful new information or understanding to how the law/society will handle patents is brought forth; it's just an excuse for the nerds to sling stones from their entrenched positions. The surrounding discussion proves this point.
the rent a car places do poor maintenance and bill the renter who is renting the car at the time it brakes down unless you buy that high cost damage coverage.
Patents have become the slimy anchor, that keeps innovations, progressions, and stifles us from doing anything good! (Originally, they were given for a number of years and then expired. This gave the company a chance to recoup the money invested in research, development and production of the product. Patents used to be a good thing.)
Not sure if all Toyota dealers are like this, or if I'm just lucky to have found a great one.
You may have found a great one, but it's also possible that it's a loss leader to entice you purchase your next car from them (and to word-of-mouth advertise for them). Their agreement with Toyota to be a dealer requires them to have mechanics, but those mechanics are not always doing useful work. If they can subsidise a sunk cost (at times that are convenient to them) and perhaps parlay it into a vehicle sale, that's a good business decision.
Altruistic or not, you're lucky to have them.
If you bother to read the actual story it's about ink cartridges for printers. Lexmark says If you refill our cartridges with non approved ink we can't guarantee the printer will work. This sounds pretty reasonable to me. The way the printer business works is they sell you printer at a loss and make up the margin on the cartridges. So a smart consumer will price the cartridges and the ink before they buy the printer, end of story, your righteous indignation not required.
Murphy was an optimist