Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the about-time dept.

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.

9 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 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
  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. 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.

  5. 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...
  6. 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.

  7. 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.