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.
I can't afford to own a printer.
As an American, other things I can't afford include housing and healthcare.
Thank you, Bush and Obama. Fuck America.
...there is nothing you can do to influence the outcome. The wealthiest party is the most likely to win. Even if they lose they will keep trying to find other ways of ensuring the market is anything but free.
If I had my way, you could patent whatever you like about the device, but third-party options for consumables must be available and their use not deliberately prevented or impaired by the device.
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?
And further down...
So does that mean if there's some firmware in my electric toothbrush, not only can the patent-holder tell me not to use it on grout but also what toothpaste to buy?
(actually Proctor and Gamble) files a "friend of the court" brief siding with Lexmark.
never buy anything Lexmark.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Patents have always been about who is allowed to manufacture an invention, not about what people can do with the invention after it has been manufactured, and certainly not who it can and cannot be transferred to. They've also had fuck-all to do with end-user licenses, but instead only manufacturing licenses. So why is any court taking this seriously, let alone agreeing with it?
But, what do I expect? Copyright law doesn't require me to accept any license to use computer software, as I'm not the one producing the copy since that was done by the person who gave me the copy, and contract law requires that contracts not be unilateral -- if I give a company something, I have to get something in return, something I didn't already have a right to -- and yet somehow software licenses are upheld by the courts too.
this is a shitty clickbait headline. I think we can do better.
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
and I always wondered how they stayed in business. You'd think word would get around.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Trump is like his supporters. A clueless, bald bitch.
Obviously they are trying to prevent cartridges from being refilled, but how can you patent how I repair a product I bought?
Lex got their money when I bought a cartridge, and now I refill it myself, so they are out of the picture. Right, they can void that short warranty, but I may use originals for the warranty period, they start refilling, making warranty a non-issue.
GM sells me a car but only their spare parts can be used? Only their tires? Fuel?
Can this be any simpler? Ink is not fucking rocket science, I doubt their formulations are patented. If they charged less for the ink it would not be an issue.
first of all let's consider legalism a form of union as in scared people or people who feel threatened form gangs that goes from cosa nostra threatened by government to civilians joining cops en mass despite lack of training backed by the government that got so corrupt the (i say cosa nostra but its a global symbol for how it comes to pass, read how it came to pass please) ... when faced with copyright trolls consider them very mortal
:)
then there's law, and law should be cos god say it is and you have to obey the symbol of the male dictator, wether its a symbol or a sandalwearing hippie in the sky
the man says DO and you do
short version sorry
then theres the part where they over time forget theres a limit to legalism, you can not defy the physical laws of newton stretched over the metaverser , now the metaverse is only a way of explaining to normals that physics is actually the only science that matters
(this sparks a whole lot of why my old psychology and sociology teachers spent more time explaining to class why their job was science than actually teaching)
cos a particle, at the core of everything is what decides everything, if you believe in absolute causality and the big bang for instance
there is no room for free will
which makes legalism in its own futile, be it the will of god or not, angles, accelaration, density et al define the future
so,
did anyone get anything of what i actually mean?
see thats the beauty of this place
you did
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Why, does the Koran forbid it?
Void all patents, this greed is holding humanity back by millennia already
I used to work for Lexmark designing knock offs of other company's (HP) toner cartridges. What a fucking bunch of shit bags.
Slashdot nuked my karma for political reasons. My karma went from excellent after many, many years to good without new any posts, comments or anything. Karma was excellent even after two my comments got modded down, comments before that were all basically modded up. Karma was excellent for the last two days, today suddenly nuked to good.
I guess since I don't agree that Trump colluded with Russia, slashdot editors / admins nuked my karma.
You called down the thunder and I'm coming.
AND I"M BRINGING HELL WITH ME!
Not that it'll matter with the way /. treats ACs...
Lexmark isn't in the business of printers, they make their money on the ink. It makes complete sense that Lexmark would be fighting for the right to patent a printer, and patent the ink that is used by the printer. If you want to sell ink, that is the perfect way, via a cheap printer. The margin so small on printers, if not a loss. Again, all money is made on the ink, they are an ink company. Make sense now?
Quoting another Slashdot post ...
eBay can't be sued
Can a company that sold you something use its patent on that product to control how you choose to use after you buy it?
Isn't the key difference here that they did it for commercial use and profits?
If I refill my toner myself, then no, they can't tell me how to use my product after purchase.
If I refill empty toners and sell them, then it's entirely different.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Since when did maintenance become usage of patented technology? Maybe the car companies could sue every petrol station for not paying patent license for the privilege of filling a tank of a car.
waiting to happen.
A company can prevent competition from happening by misuse of a legal concept (patents) aimed at different objectives -- like protecting inventors which disclose how their creations work, obviously to facilitate the production of other inventions which would interact with the patented thing.
Like other toner cartridges. Or other kinds of ink.
In my dictionary, preventing competition means capitalism cannot exist -- because there's not a market, nor an invisible hand, nor nothing... it's just planned production, like in socialism. The only difference is that such central planning is outsourced instead of being done directly by the government.
Of course, now it makes sense why some politicians would seek alignment with Russia and Putin.
What do I need to get capitalism? Start learning mandarin?
> 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.
It's sort of the one thing I found disgusting about the hearings. Al Franken was making good but irrelevant points about arbitration. Then he went off on a Garland tangent.
The female Senator from Minnesota said that on the second round she would go into antitrust. But when the second round came she delayed antitrust for political crap. I didn't hear her questions on the third round so I don't know if she ever got to it.
Of what I heard IP was never discussed.
Yet these things affect us more then whether or not Garland got a hearing.
Consider this:
Able inverts and patents a really good razor blade which lasts 1000 shaves.
Able sells it to Baker with the restriction that he will only use it 1 time.
Baker uses it once and gives it to Charlie who cleans it an resells it understanding and ignoring the restriction.
Able sues Charlie and the it ends up before SCOTUS.
Question: was the restriction enforceable under patent law or only under contract law.
In other words, did the first sale extinguish Able's patent exclusivity right in the sold blade, or did the requirement somehow make it immortal.
Did the restriction further the useful arts by funding Able, or diminish them by limiting the use of a useful gadget.
I'm going to start making cars (Anonymous Coward Automobile Company, DBA ACAA). I'm also going to happen to sell gas. On each car, I'm going to fashion the gas fill port to only accept the nozzle from my pumps. On each pump, I'm going to put a notice forbidding reuse or transfer to third parties.
So if you buy one of my cars and some neighborhood gas station tries to sell you gas by outfitting their pumps with my special nozzle? Bam. I own that station's ass...or at least a piece of it.
Make sense? No, in so many ways. First, there's no way you'd buy a car like mine with such a silly limitation. Sensible Automobile Company is right across the street. In short order, my ACAA is going to be out of business. Second, there's no way stations are going to retrofit their pumps to accommodate my stupid design. Third, if my ACAA became "the norm," a whole industry of pump adapters would spring up so that car owners could carry them around with them.
Sound familiar?
The manufacturer could easily determine if a cartridge for which replacement is requested *actually* warranted replacement if the consumer supplies a brief letter stating what was wrong with the product and why it was not fit for purpose.
The cartridges would further be clearly labeled "for limited use only", and the printers that use them would be similarly clearly labeled to the effect that they require only the limited use cartridges of the given brand.
This equips consumers with the information necessary for them to make an informed decision about whether they want to use such a printer and its cartridges, and allows manufacturers to control what products are used in theirs without having to rely on stupid-ass shit laws like the DMCA or something similar.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If you haven't stolen it you don't have anything. Make everything a crime and crime isn't all that bad anymore. Make people defend their pathetic claims of innocence.
He's always onto treacherous things.
I buy cartridges in batches on eBay for Brother printers that have separate cartridges for each of the colors. They have always worked.
I buy Brother printers with separate cartridges for each color, and the cartridges in batches off eBay. I've had my current printer for quite a while now and the cartridges are reliable, so why is ths case even a thing?
and the change oil light reset code can be covered under the DCMA and no jiffy lube does not have the rights to use that code.
Any product that has ANY post sale involvement is up for DRM (Digital Rights Management) abuse! Any home appliance the breaks or needs repair! Any vehicle that needs repair! This is a BIG issue! DRM MUST be toned down to protect the original manufacturer or sale, but NOT limit or deny repair for fix by a 3rd party!
the lobbying ( bribing ) power to get the legislators, governors, judges and bureaucrats to side with them.
So, a few paiid vacations for someone is all it will take before this becomes settled.
Sad, pessimistic and cyncal, but all too true.
If I blow a Lexmark printer up, am I a patent violator? Watch out Myth Busters.
By this logic Lexmark is saying that it always owns the container, so by transition they need to include shipping and handling so I can return them their property and they can deal with it.
If lexmark win this then every car manufacturer will be able to create their own fuel and shut out generic petrol alternatives.
Hell... You could make a toaster that must only run on your specific brand of bread.
Or even better... A toothbrush that is only licensed to use one brand of toothpaste.
Hell, a glass that may only use a specific brand of sparkling water.
FFS!!
So Lexmark has a patent on their special cartridges - meaning others can't manufacture such cartridges due to the patent. Similar to how Ford has various patents on their cars - so others can't make Ford lookalikes. Perhaps not even "ford compatible gas tanks" because a patent cover the tank design.
Lexmark doesn't have a patent on toner though, so others can make & sell toner. Similar to how third parties can make gasoline - even gasoline for Ford cars.
So they can certainly re-fill lexmark cartridges with un-patented toner. (Just as anyone can put gasoline in car tanks.) They can't make replacement cartridges, but they can top up existing cartridges until they wear out. And then they can repair them, if need be.
The slight difference where cars were designed to be filled by third parties and printer cartridges were not, does not matter here. As long as the toner itself isn't patent encumbered - fine.
So if I buy say....Cool Whip...or butter in a tub...or any product that has a plastic container I can reuse; if they print "Do not reuse container"...wouldn't that mean I'd legally have to dispose of the container rather than doing my own recycling? Or is it a thing that Lexmark has a specific patent on their printer cartridges that would make this work...where as food vendors don't have the patents. I'm just wondering if anyone is thinking about the repercussions outside of printers; because you know there are lawyers who make a living off taking a judgement for one thing and arguing it in court for another and setting new precedence. I save the glass jars from stuff I get..wash them out...do something else. I don't want to have to go spend good money on empty jars just because Smuckers or someone decided I couldn't use a jar I already paid for.
"The insurance business is completely screwy now.
You know they've reintroduced the death penalty for insurance company directors?"
"Really?" said Arthur. "No, I didn't. For what offense?"
Trillian frowned.
"What do you mean, offense?"
"I see."
We've gone off the rails and nobody wants to accept the pain necessary to fix it.
Governments recognize the need to incentivize intellectual achievement. We want inventors and creators to have sufficient incentive to create the things we all benefit from. The problem is that not all intellectual property creations benefit the public equally. Lawmakers are rightfully wary of creating a mess by valuing them on a case by case basis. As a result, we give the same value to a company's patent on an ink cartridge design necessary to work in the company's printer as we do to a replacement for a carburetor that cuts fuel cost and emissions.
If I own a printer company and I design a novel ink cartridge that I can get a patent on and I make all of the printers I create require said design of printer cartridge, I've given myself a monopoly. That's not really a bad thing in itself, because that cartridge design really is novel. The problem is that the public only benefits from maybe five years of protection on that patent, but we give twenty because we don't want the hassle of determining which inventions are worth protecting for twenty years and which are worth protecting for one year.
There is a fix, and it's simple. The problem is that it will piss off a lot of companies that sway public opinion and thus re-electability of politicians. If you're the politician who removes the profit from a thousand successful companies, your time in office is suddenly curtailed. Still, if we can elect enough politicians who care more about doing public good than getting reelected, they should make patents and copyrights default to one year, with a special hearing needed to extend it to five years and another to ten and a final one to extend it to the max of twenty (with grandfathering to ensure the economy doesn't flip out immediately.) Ditto for copyright and other forms of intellectual property protection.
And while we're on the subject of electability, it seems that every commenter I've seen in recent times agrees that getting money for a campaign determines who gets elected, but that's confusing causality with correlation. (If you're one of them, you've probably already stopped reading and are getting your angry rant and insults keyboard plugged in, but read on so you can insult my arguments properly.) Popular politicians win elections and popular politicians get campaign money. It's not one because of the other, it's a correlation. I doubt most people who believe money buys elections will bother to learn more, but there is some good info and links at http://freakonomics.com/2012/0... .
If Mr. Adams were writing the line today, I suspect it would be patent lawyers instead.
Writing law is the job of elected legislators.
cute, but in actuality change the verb to "copying and pasting" and change the subject to "staff of legislators". Legislators are just the fundraising figurehead of the organization. And once you realize that our laws are written by 22 year old grads of ivy league schools you start to understand why they are so messed up.
The way printer companies try to function is very much as a monopoly.
Seems to me, lawyers should be able to use the anti-trust regulations against those companies -- arguing that these attempts to monopolize the toner market are harmful to consumers (since they are). Or, maybe those arguments have already been tried and failed?
Writing law is the job of elected legislators
Actually, they are too busy taking bribes (aka campaign contributions). This job is left to the staff, who are generally lawyers. They tend to write the laws in such a fashion as to create future business for their profession. It's unethical, of course, but the courts are also staffed by lawyers - and the judges get selected by ignoring major legal ethics issues.
Between the corrupt and the unethical, US law is a disaster - and it's going to stay that way until the public decides to do something about it.
. Judges shouldn't just ignore the law as written whenever they unilaterally decide they don't like the law.
This is a tricky issue, because the US Bill of Rights is open-ended. James Madison made it that way, to address the concerns the Anti-Federalists had with the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution. This is actually a good thing - unspecified rights are "retained to" the people (9th Amendment) and "reserved to" the people (10th Amendment). But it does mean that the law as written actually requires judges to hold invalid local, state, and federal laws when those laws violate fundamental rights.
In short, legislative authority ends when the laws as written violate any rights the people choose to assert, because of the higher law (the Bill of Rights being the highest law in the land) as written.
In practice, of course, the corruption and ethics problems mentioned above tend to ensure that this happens seldom. Also, few people in the legal profession want people asserting rights without their involvement - it's a lot like priests and religion, individual faith is anathema because then who needs the priests?
If I buy a car fill with gas from Toyota do I have to buy gas from Toyota every fill up?