Slashdot Mirror
Why You Should Care About the Supreme Court Case On Toner Cartridges (consumerist.com)
rmdingler quotes a report from Consumerist: A corporate squabble over printer toner cartridges doesn't sound particularly glamorous, and the phrase "patent exhaustion" is probably already causing your eyes to glaze over. However, these otherwise boring topics are the crux of a Supreme Court case that will answer a question with far-reaching impact for all consumers: Can a company that sold you something use its patent on that product to control how you choose to use after you buy it? The case in question is Impression Products, Inc v Lexmark International, Inc, came before the nation's highest court on Tuesday. Here's the background: Lexmark makes printers. Printers need toner in order to print, and Lexmark also happens to sell toner. Then there's Impression Products, a third-party company makes and refills toner cartridges for use in printers, including Lexmark's. Lexmark, however, doesn't want that; if you use third-party toner cartridges, that's money that Lexmark doesn't make. So it sued, which brings us to the legal chain that ended up at the Supreme Court. In an effort to keep others from getting a piece of that sweet toner revenue, Lexmark turned to its patents: The company began selling printer cartridges with a notice on the package forbidding reuse or transfer to third parties. Then, when a third-party -- like Impression -- came around reselling or recycling the cartridges, Lexmark could accuse them of patent infringement. So far the courts have sided with Lexmark, ruling that Impression was using Lexmark's patented technology in an unauthorized way. The Supreme Court is Impression's last avenue of appeal. The question before the Supreme Court isn't one of "can Lexmark patent this?" Because Lexmark can, and has. The question is, rather: Can patent exhaustion still be a thing, or does the original manufacturer get to keep having the final say in what you and others can do with the product? Kate Cox notes via Consumerist that the Supreme Court ruling is still likely months away. However, she has provided a link to the transcript of this week's oral arguments (PDF) in her report and has dissected it to see which way the justices are leaning on the issue.
Excuse me? What have they patented exactly? A sticker saying "Do not remove"? Some software on the chip? And this invalidates my rights to buy, install, or use aftermarket parts or services because..... of.... what clause in patent law exactly?
Is the author high, or trying to sneak in support for an invalid patent, or just plain confused? Patents affect who can make a product. Not the sale or use of the item after the initial manufactures sale. What clusterfuck corrosion of the rule of law have the patent lawyers hoisted on the body politic this time?
never buy anything Lexmark.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
If I had my way, you could patent whatever you like about the device. But the moment you sell the device to someone they can do whatever they damn well want with it. As with copyright, the only thing patent protection should prevent is me from distributing copies of the device without the patent holder's permission. If I want to fill the cartridge with oatmeal and put it in my printer, it should be my right to do so by the First Sale doctrine (aka the exhaustion rule mentioned in summary).
If the patent holder wishes to claim they still control the printer and cartridge, then they didn't sell it to me. They rented it to me. And like a landlord who is responsible for repairing things that break down in a rented apartment, they are responsible for fixing the printer if it breaks for as long as they claim they control the cartridge. i.e. If they claim the control the cartridge forever, then that is the same thing as saying the printer has a transferable lifetime warranty.
This is the only sane way to look at the issue. I paid you for product X; now it's mine. I do with it as I please.
I want to pay someone to modify it? That's my right. It's mine now, remember?
Until the car companies pull a John Deere and claim DMCA.
You must now use only authorized repair facilities to get your car serviced, parts are now covered by the DMCA.
That is what John Deere is doing which is what sparked the right to repair bills in a lot of farm states.
Lexmark abused the DMCA about 10 years ago and lost in court.
Now they are trying the same thing with patents.
If Lexmark wins this we all lose.
The DMCA, providing bad law for over 20 years.
Same answer as my last patent post.
If you want to maintain control over something while gaining money, you RENT it.
If you SELL it, you give up the right to tell people what to do with it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It's not the courts that need to side with us, it's the legislators. We need them to agree to the principle of customer rights as GP outlined them. Good laws will follow from that, and good rulings from judges after. Merely hoping for judges to rule in our favour according to the few disjoint customer protection laws we have is not going to help; current laws are already stacked in favour of the likes of Lexmark.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
> It's not the courts that need to side with us, it's the legislators.
Exactly. Writing law is the job of elected legislators. A ln appointed judge's job is to read and understand the law in order to apply it to a particular case.
The current law on patents, written by legislators, is that a patent controls who can "make, sell, or use" the patented invention. The "sell or use" part needs to be fixed. Judges shouldn't just ignore the law as written whenever they unilaterally decide they don't like the law.
Wherever did you find well meaning politicians?
I think you meant: Overlapping groups of politicians accept lobbiest influence to pass laws causing problems but profiting a group able to get that influence. That causes problems for an increasing number of others as the first group's grip is squeezed, and eventually enough band together to buy enough influence to get a 'fixer' law passed. Many politicians just pretend to be dumb, so they plead 'last minute resistance' and amendments as the reason the law was altered to one that only partly fixes the problem. Politicians milk this as long as they can, eventually creating a tangle of competing laws that contradict leading to lawsuits and judicial rulings that start the whole thing over again. Every round profits the politicians. It's almost as though they're all lawyers who understand how to create and profit from conflict. Almost...
So... where are these well meaning politicians?