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.

Comments

Fait Acompli?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question before the Supreme Court isn't one of "can Lexmark patent this?" Because Lexmark can, and has.

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?

Re:Fait Acompli?

[jenningsthecat]

...What clusterfuck corrosion of the rule of law have the patent lawyers hoisted on the body politic this time?

"Rule of law"? Have you been living in a cave? Rule of law has been on the endangered species list for quite some time, and its prospects of survival are becoming more dire by the second. Corporations have been quite successful in their overt efforts make the rule of law follow the dodo into extinction.

Nobody should be surprised by this kind of shit any more; the only surprise is that there seems to be no sign of the bloody revolution that usually follows such ongoing abuse by the rich and powerful. I guess they've perfected bread and circuses, (and public education), to the point where average people no longer care, or even realize, that they've been sold down the river into slavery.

Re:If I had my way...

[Solandri]

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.