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.
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?
Hi. I'm European. I love Obamacare even though I don't understand it. But it has Obama in it and I would love to suck his dick.
never buy anything Lexmark.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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/
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 would the american's european insult anyone, much less everyone?
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Quoting another Slashdot post ...
eBay can't be sued
YES there is. We seriously need to boycott these corrupt consumer- hating companies.
Boycott
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?
Some libraries have computers these days.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
> 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.
Yes, but that's the wrong way round. What we need is the courts to ban this behaviour; then the printer manufacturers will have to start making the printers more expensive to make their profits on the first sale. At that point, the market will be balanced.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Oh look. An american saying his european trying to insult everyone. Lame.
A real European wouldn't be able to insult anyone, lest the authorities in Brussels turn him into a carbon fiber coffee table for sale at Ikea.
Another reason why you shouldn't care is that it only takes a single country with sane patent laws and a shipping company that doesn't mind sending you stuff you mustn't use, you bad, bad patent infringer!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Would you please stop giving them stupid ideas?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You can't boycott them all, and this problem is bigger than just a printer cartridge. This barely scratches the surface.
How about "abandonware"? Software not supported on your OS might be portable to another but there's no guarantee the original developer or new rights holder won't come after you. The storm might arrive a long time later as well: build a NES emulator and try selling it. You can get away with this right up to the point Nintendo decides there's some money in it. After that you'll get the rubber hose.
There's no point in law that says "my manufacturer has abandoned my interests" that can be followed with "I will engineer my own solution". If Lexmark stops making toner tomorrow you still can't legally make your own toner. Sure you can try and you *probably* won't get sued but that's more to do with logistics than law - the DMCA stands.
These things haven't been possible since we abolished fair use rights.
And printers.
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.
You can be sure they'll throw plenty of resources at trying to intercept it.
I mean this is muuuuuuuch more important than drugs and explosives, right?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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'
Except that this country can be barred from imports for failure to cooperate with repressive intellectual property laws. Related events occurred in Africa, where AIDS is more common that it ever became in the USA. The drug cocktails used to treat AIDS were prohibitively expensive to purchase for many of the patients, and some of these companies started manufacturing the drugs locally, in violation of international patent law.
There are a number of good articles about the problem, such as https://cyber.harvard.edu/peop... .
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.
I buy cartridges in batches on eBay for Brother printers that have separate cartridges for each of the colors. They have always worked.
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!
A real European wouldn't be able to insult anyone,
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
Oh look. An american saying his european trying to insult everyone. Lame.
A real European wouldn't be able to insult anyone, lest the authorities in Brussels turn him into a carbon fiber coffee table for sale at Ikea.
So they would turn him into a carbon fiber coffee table, and then dis-assemble him?!?!
Dude, that's brutal!
I hope he had one of those little wrenches in his pocket when they zapped him...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
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!!
I can't afford to own a printer.
not even the throwaway $30 inkjet ones that are sold as an excuse to sell you ink cartridges that cost four times as much?
Need to watch sales more, bro. I bought a Pantum wireless laser printer on NewEgg Flash for $25 with free shipping. Works with the Windows desktops, Linux desktops, and Mac laptops here with no issue. Bought it in August 2015 and it is just recently started displaying the notification LED that the original (lower yield) toner cartridge is running low.
You can buy a cheap Android phone for $10 in a grocery store.
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.
Try, just TRY to disallow imports from China.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"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.
You can absolutely sell an Emulator. Connectix got sued by Sony for their Virtual Game Station PSX emulator, and won.
You clearly have never part shopped for car parts.. You cannot prevent aftermarket parts as you state it. There is no law stating that you cant produce ford compatible gas tanks in any country that i am aware of. Thats why you often have multple people who make gas tanks. Don't believe me? look it up. http://www.rockauto.com/en/cat...
These companies simply want to bring computer licensing models to things like toner carts and that is BS. The rulings for the courts were probably printed on re-manufactured toner cartridges. Who the hell buys brand name toner? Lexmark should be focusing on making their printers cheaper to run (use less power, use less toner), not creating a monopoly on cartridges. Guess which is easier though.
-
While true that China is too large a trading partner to ignore, trade with them has more legal and financial levers to apply. Tariffs matter a great deal to trade with China. So do exports from the US, especially aircraft, electrical equipment, food, and a number of other US exports.
woooshhh..."...i told him we already had one..."
you mean after the Muslims drive them out.....again?
If I buy a car fill with gas from Toyota do I have to buy gas from Toyota every fill up?