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.
Depends on the country you're in. Especially in consumer contract areas, laws in Europe very quickly void anything that could be considered an adhesion contract.
How it is handled in the United Corporations of America, though...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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..).
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.
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.