Slashdot Mirror


US Supreme Court Protects Consumers' Right To Refill Ink Cartridges In Precedent-Setting Lexmark vs Impression Case (hothardware.com)

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday companies give up their patent rights when they sell an item, in a ruling that puts new limits on businesses' ability to prevent their products from being resold at a discount. The ruling is a defeat for Lexmark International, which was trying to stop refurbished versions of its printer cartridges from undercutting its U.S. sales. It's also a blow to companies like HP and Canon that sell their printers for a relatively low cost with the idea that they will recoup money on sales of replacement cartridges. From a report: Lexmark originally set its sights on Impression Products, a small company that specializes in remanufacturing print cartridges for resale at prices much lower than what a customer would pay for a "genuine" Lexmark product. These cartridges often have no noticeable difference in performance compared to genuine ink or toner cartridges -- the only real difference is that customers can save a lot of money by going the remanufactured route. This secondary market for cartridges not only has implications for regular Joes looking to save a buck, but also businesses that are always looking to cut costs.

17 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. All I have to say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    good

    1. Re:All I have to say is by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That was my initial reaction too, but this is doubtless going to be the decision that pushing them over to licensing/renting cartridges, rather than selling them. The decision itself says that if Lexmark wants to enforce these sorts of restrictions, it can't do so via patent law after the initial sale, but it can do so via contract law. Which is basically just a way of saying, "Lexmark, follow the software industry's lead if you want to screw customers".

      Again, the decision was a good one, but I don't look forward to what comes next.

    2. Re:All I have to say is by fodder69 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That was actually my first thought as well. Business and consumers are both going to hesitate when required to sign a contract to buy a printer or ink cartridge I think. Hit the cash register and the cashier whips out a contract for you to sign? In this case I think free market principles will make that position untenable.

    3. Re:All I have to say is by msauve · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, but neither do I pay any attention to the terms of a contract of adhesion, one I can't negotiate, gives me no rights I don't already have, and which I don't agree to.

      Shrink-wrap licenses ostensibly use copyright law to force a contract, but I consider copying software from the distribution media to the computer, then into memory to run it, as fair use - that's the sole purpose of the software, and it would otherwise be useless.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re: All I have to say is by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That's a completely different case.

      The main difference is that during a rent, all the risk is up to the person renting out the object. So if Tesla rents out a battery pack, Tesla has to maintain it in the usable condition agreed upon when signing the contract. Tesla does not rent out the electricity stored in the battery. You can recharge the battery whenever and as often as you like.

      If Lexmark wants to rent out the toner cartridge, they rent out the actual cartridge, and still you can refill the cartridge whenever you want, and Lexmark has to repair it or replace it whenever it stops printing. Only if Lexmark instead provides "printing services" for rent, it's up to Lexmark to either refill the cartridges or put new ones in, if the old ones are empty.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  2. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now, what will the SCOTUS say about the right to repair for farming machinery from John Deere (if I remember correctly)?

  3. Finally, an 8-0 ruling! by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is great. Even better is that it was 8-0 (or 7-1 on some parts, as mentioned in the article). It's wonderful to see something as basic to our society as the idea that "sold products are not owned by the seller after the sale" be confirmed unanimously by the supreme court. This will send a very real message to other industries as well, and likely result in even peripherally associated industries looking for other ways to mitigate their perceived losses other than expensive legislation and punishing their customers.

    Truly excellent, and will have invisible benefits for years.

  4. "companies give up their patent rights..." by MrKevvy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "... when they sell an item..."

    This may be a precedent-setter in the cases of the farmers who save seed and are then sued for by "patent infringement" by Monsanto.

    --
    -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
  5. Re:What about other copyrights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Both format shifting (ripping) and making backup copies have long been considered legal under fair use in the US. You just have to make sure to delete any copies if you resell the original. You also cannot share the copies you made with anyone else.

  6. Trump by thegreatbob · · Score: 5, Funny

    Glad to see that consumers rights trump corporations' rights in the eyes of the SCOTUS. My apologies to anyone that may have thought I might be going in a different direction there.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  7. Good decision, but there's some dishonesty... by ErikTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...in the discussion. I used to repair printers. To say that there is no difference between remanufactured cartridges overall and OEM cartridges is a joke. Yes. there are some excellent remanufactures out there that produce outstanding products. There are also plenty of shoddy ones that sell leaky ones that crap up your printer and / or use substandard ink / toner that produce lesser (or awful) pages. In most cases, the consumer has no idea and buys on price. From a patent standpoint, Lexmark's case was stupid, petulant, and ridiculous. However, if they wanted to make an argument about voiding your warranty for using remanufactured cartridges then they would probably have a valid point. Really, the whole printer industry is in a prisoners' dilemma where they have to keep the printer prices down in order to sell printers and then they make it up on consumables. This eases up a bit in the enterprise space where you occasionally have more sophisticated buyers that have enough experience to understand that efficient purchasing covers the entire lifecycle of the device. Hopefully somebody will be able to break this cycle, but it will probably take some very good marketing to convince consumers to be less price-sensitive with the initial purchase.

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    1. Re:Good decision, but there's some dishonesty... by macwhiz · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree. I used to work for a major printer and print-engine manufacturer, as a senior support tech for laser printers. ("Senior" as in "if I have to escalate your issue, I call the product engineers directly.")

      For one thing, not the difference between refilled and remanufactured cartridges. A refilled cartridge has just had more toner added; a remanufactured cartridge should have had the optical photoconductor (OPC) drum replaced as well (but too often, does not). While it's likely that the OPC will last much longer than one fill of toner, it's not guaranteed. In fact, if you have a laser printer for occasional printing at home, chances are you replace the toner cartridge when the OPC wears out from age and starts causing image defects, not when the toner runs out. If you send that cartridge to a place that refills it, the next user will inherit those image problems.

      The remanufacturers don't use the same quality toner and OPC, either. The xerographic process is... finicky. Everything has to be just right for it to work well. The entire print engine is designed around specific physical and electrochemical properties of the toner. If your reman'd cartridge uses toner that's got a different charge, or melts at a different point, or was ground too thick or too thin... it's not going to work as well. If the replacement OPC isn't well-matched to the wavelength of the laser in your printer, it's not going to work as well. If the replacement OPC has a too-thin coating... Well, you get the picture.

      If you're using a laser printer for light-duty work, you're absolutely better off going with OEM cartridges. If you don't print enough to use up the toner, chances are the cartridge will have a practical lifespan of about five years. The extra cost of the OEM cartridge over five years is negligible. The chances of an aftermarket cartridge failing, working poorly, or lasting a fraction of that time are pretty good.

      I'm not as familiar with inkjets, but I do know that ink isn't just ink. Your inkjet is designed for ink of a particular viscosity, with a certain chemistry, and the software assumes that the ink will be a certain precise color. If you use an aftermarket "close enough" ink, it may clog, run, smear (because it dries too slow), or result in screwed-up colors in your photos.

  8. Re:What about other copyrights? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry but a 6 digit UID is not "low"... with a UID as high as yours I'd expect you to know that :-)

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  9. Re:Wait, people still use inkjets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some of the black laser printers are somewhat affordable, but I've never seen an affordable color laser printer and even the black laser printers usually cost more than most color inkjets. Ink still has a place until that changes.

    The cost of the unit itself is pointless to discuss when it is the cost of the consumables that actually make the difference.

    I've yet to find an inkjet cartridge last anywhere near as long as laser toner.

  10. The Federal Circuit court keeps getting it wrong by H3lldr0p · · Score: 4, Informative

    One might even feel like the court, with it's unanimity is trying to tell the Federal Circuit that it really wants to stop having to hear all these patent cases. The opinion was delivered by the Chief Justice who spared no words in telling the Federal Circuit that it needs to do a much better job.

    This venerable principle is not, as the Federal Circuit dismissively viewed it, merely "one common-law jurisdiction's general judicial policy at one time toward antialienation restrictions."

    And

    The Federal Circuit reached a different result largely because it got off on the wrong foot.

  11. Re:What about other copyrights? by josecanuc · · Score: 5, Funny

    So what does count as a "low" UID these days? Is anyone even still signing up? This place is a shell of it's former self.