The exceptions are there because our society thinks they are worth it. In order for a lawyer to represent his client the best he can, he needs all the information - even that which is detrimental to his client. If a lawyer could be compelled to testify against his own client the client would be deprived of good representation. In order to have a healthy (mentally and physically) population, people must not be afraid to go to the doctor. In order to have a healthy marriage it is important that the spouses be able to bare their souls to each other. And compelling a priest (eg) to testify against a penitent would go against freedom of religion.
It really doesn't have much to do with Facebook, or how difficult the information is to get. It has more to do with the legal definition of expectation of privacy. In everyday usage, people think of something as being public (if everyone has access to it) or private (if only a few people know it). The legal definition is much stricter. For something to be considered legally private only one person must have the information - you (there are a few notable exceptions to this). If something is legally private the court does not have access to it. If you tell ANYONE (*) else the information it is no longer considered legally private, and the court can have access to it.
So, by posting info on Facebook (whose very purpose is sharing information) you are giving up your legal privacy protection.
If the lawyers said to the court 'we noticed that every night she closes the window shades and we hear music in there, and we think she is dancing around the room, so let us put a camera in there so we can find out' the court would deny it, because she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, if she tells someone she is doing that (in person, by phone, through the mail, on the web, etc) it is no longer private.
* The exceptions to the rule are for lawyers, doctors, spouses, and maybe the clergy.
So why didn't any of these other inventors come up with the steam engine before Watt? If Watt was not driven by his desire to make money off his invention how much longer would we have had to wait before there was ANY steam engine? Were Hornblower et al eventually going to come up with a steam engine without having Watt's work to build from? Is there any evidence to support the idea that they would have?
How are the police supposed to do their job if they do not know there has been a crime? According to other newspapers, this guy STILL has not reported the theft of the dog to the police. The fault lies entirely with the guy who decided the best course of action was to complain to the newspapers rather than filing a police report.
"A West Yorkshire Police spokesman added: ‘If this gentleman wishes to report a theft to us, we will look into the matter. However, we are obviously unable to give members of the public people’s address details.’"
Except that is not the case. You don't pay for a chip to let you know where the dog is, you pay for a chip to help you identify the dog. That is the only service provided by the chipping company.
They don't know the location of the dog (the chip is not a GPS device). The only information they have is the contact information for the PERSON who registered the dog, which may not be any indication of the physical location of the dog.
It doesn't matter though. Walmart (not the consumer) is still on the hook to pay their suppliers. If they don't, the supplier will go after Walmart. The only way CK could possibly come after an individual consumer was if they claimed that Walmart never had the authority to sell the jeans in the first place (ie they were stolen from CK), and that the consumer had stolen goods. If that were the case, then Walmart would be criminally responsible for theft and would have pulled a massive fraud on the consumer and would be sued into oblivion. There is no way that sort of scenario is going to be commonplace.
Nonsense. The Civil Rights Act says you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. There may have been a few more classes added later. It doesn't say you can't discriminate at all (which would be a pretty awful law). There are some very good reasons for 'discrimination' against customers, inability to pay for instance. Can a restaurant throw out customers who are being loud and obnoxious? Of course (in fact, there was just a story on CNN about a restaurant with a 'no screaming kids' policy). Could a bar in Boston post a 'no Yankees fans' sign? Yes. Can an employer 'discriminate' against an applicant based on the fact that he doesn't have the required education? Of course.
You can buy or lease the hardware. The software is licensed under contract.
It seems like the GP is talking about software charges, not hardware. Software can be either monthly fee based or usage based. If it is usage based you must send a usage report to IBM so they can bill you. That is specified in the contract. In either case, the number of and performance of the CPs is calculated into the cost.
Hardware is a different story. With hardware, the number of cores you purchase is not the same as the number you get. For instance, you can buy a 1 core machine, but what you get is 16 cores. Only 1 core is enabled in the firmware though. IBM has offerings (again under contract) where you can buy the right to temporarily enable additional processors instantaneously (like if you lost one of your datacenters and need to transfer the workload to another one). With these offerings, you also need to send usage info to IBM so they can bill you for the time that the additional cores have been enabled.
When configured to run Linux, each core costs approx $125K. When configured for z/OS, each core costs approx $250K. A complete system (not including any storage or software) can cost up to around $30M.
You can write whatever little rants you want claiming all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them true.
Now, I cited an actual Supreme Court case, which apparently you did not read. So here are some of the pertinent things from the actual case, not mere supposition:
This is what the petitioner claimed:
"The owner of a patent cannot, by means of the patent, restrict the use made of a device manufactured under the patent after the device has passed into the hands of a purchaser in the ordinary channels of trade and full consideration paid therefor."
That sounds exactly like the arguments made here, doesn't it?
This is what the SCOTUS had to say about that:
"But that proposition ignores controlling facts. The patent owner did not sell to petitioner the amplifiers in question or authorize the Transformer Company to sell them or any amplifiers for use in theaters or any other commercial use. The sales made by the Transformer Company to petitioner were outside the scope of its license, and not under the patent."... Pertinent words of the license are these: "To manufacture . . . and to sell only for radio amateur reception, radio experimental reception and radio broadcast reception. . .."...Patent owners may grant licenses extending to all uses or limited to use in a defined field. 76 U. S. 799-800; Gamewell Fire Alarm Telegraph Co. v. Brooklyn, 14 F.2d 5; Dorsey Rake Co. v. Bradley Co., No. 4,015, 7 Fed.Cas. 946-947; Robinson on Patents, 808, 824. Unquestionably, the owner of a patent may grant licenses to manufacture, use, or sell upon conditions not inconsistent with the scope of the monopoly.
Do you understand that? Patent owners CAN restrict use to a defined field (with several cases demonstrating that). Also, UNQUESTIONABLY (their word, not mine) a patent owner can put conditions on the use of a patent.
Now, I understand that you don't like that. I never said I liked it or supported it either, and I wish you wouldn't imply otherwise.
Finally, please point out where I claimed the SCOTUS said things it did not say. And if you have any actual cases backing up your points, please provide them.
I apologize for the insulting statement. I also agree that the manufacturers SHOULD put such a notice in the box (I honestly thought they did, I know the camera I bought came with such a notice). My only point in arguing this is that it really bothers me when people make statements about legal issues that just are not true, such as saying that you don't have to have a license just because you were not party to an agreement. The current situation may indeed suck, and a court test would be nice, but I would hate like hell to BE the court test case!
I'll try, but I am seriously beginning to question your ability to comprehend it.
The things that say there are restrictions on the use of the device (H.264 encoder) are:
1) The fact that it is patented, and 2) US Patent Law which says you need permission from the patent owner to use a patented thing
Now, perhaps you could show me where you got that permission from. Don't say the camera manufacturer, because they don't have the authority to give it to you, regardless of what they do or don't tell you.
If I lease a piece of property from Joe, and later turn around and SELL that property to you, do you own it? Obviously not, because I didn't have permission to sell it to you in the first place. Can Joe now come and either throw you off the property or demand payment from you? Yes indeed. Does the fact that you 'bought' it from me matter in the slightest (as far as you and Joe are concerned)? Nope.
The device is not 'for personal use only'. The device can be used for anything you want, and no-one has anything to say about it.
However, if you are selling videos, you need a license from MPEG-LA (to sell the videos, not to operate the camera). It is not the camera manufacturers responsibility to tell you that (although most do).
I recently purchased a car, and nowhere in the sales or vehicle documentation does it say I need a license to drive the car on a public road. Does that mean I don't need a license?
I also purchased some lumber, and again they didn't tell me I need a building permit to use that lumber to build a house. Does that mean I don't need one?
I don't know where you got the idea the onus is on someone else to tell you what you are required to do. That is YOUR responsibility alone.
If you are in the house-building business it is YOUR responsibility to know what the various codes are and what you are required to do, not the company who sold you the tools you use.
If you are in the video business it is YOUR responsibility to know what licenses and permits are required, not the manufacturer of the camera.
Are you really this dense? How does the line you quoted turn into some sort of 'special patent' rant? Let's try to take this real slow...
You said there is no contract that says you can't sell prints or set up a portait studio.
I pointed out that patents that cover MOVING PICTURES have nothing to do with STILL PICTURES (prints and portraits).
Just for the record, there are millions of OTHER patents that have nothing to do with portrait photography.
Now for the parts that seem so hard for you to understand...
You need a license to sell a video (over 12 minutes long) encoded with H.264. This license comes from MPEG-LA. Purchase of a video camera (ANY video camera) does not include that license. It does not matter if the camera says that or not.
You need a license to drive a car on a public road. Purchase of a video camera (or car for that matter) does not include that license either. Again, neither the camera nor car manufacturers need to inform you of that.
You CAN use your camera for any damn thing you wish. You can make the top-grossing movie of all time with it if you want. Neither the camera manufacturer nor MPEG-LA give a rats ass what you do with the camera.
If you want to SELL your H.264 encoded video you need a license (to sell the video, not use the camera). That license comes from MPEG-LA, not the camera manufacturer.
As explained, no you do not need to agree to anything. The law says you need authorization to use a patented invention. A manufacturer can not sell you something it does not have. The manufacturer does not the right to sell you a commercial license. There is no EULA, but there IS a notification stating you have not purchased a commercial license.
As for 'double dipping': do you know what the fee is that the manufacturer pays for the right to put the tech in the camera? $0.20 (yes, twenty cents, MAX). And no, they are not double-dipping. The only reason you paid that fee is because you bought something you didn't need - a consumer camera. I guess the reason you bought that is because a consumer camera is still way cheaper than a commercial camera that doesn't have an H.264 encoder, but you still complain about the whopping $0.20 that MPEG-LA got?
No, I did not say that. I said it COULD happen. In the very next sentence is said it WON'T happen. Then I listed the reason it won't happen: the car companies are not interested in segmenting the market. Both commercial and private uses are vital to their business. They will not agree to a license structure that treats commercial and private use differently, because it would be bad for their business. Furthermore, it doesn't even make much sense for the patent holder to want such a split. If one transportation company is doing 10X the business of another, they will probably have about 10X as many vehicles, so the patent holder will have 10X the money. That is fair to the patent holder, the manufacturer, and the end purchaser.
On the other hand, there is a very good reason why video patent holders, manufacturers, and consumers would want to split the market. The market for commercial video cameras (units sold) is tiny compared to the consumer market. But the revenues from the videos created using the patent in the commercial market is huge. A video that grosses $500M does not require 5000X the number of cameras that a video grossing $100K requires. So how do you structure the license fees so that they are fair to everyone? If you try to get all the fees from the sale of cameras the camera consumer is paying the whole thing, and the commercial ventures get basically a free ride. That is not fair to the consumer. It would also drive the price of a camera way up, which is not good for the consumer, manufacturer, or patent holder. So the fair thing to do is to split the market. The consumer can get a fairly cheap camera which is good for the consumer and manufacturer. A commercial venture that makes more money pays more than one that doesn't. That is fair to everyone.
Let's say you own a building. You sign a lease with someone. Part of the terms of the lease is no commercial use of the space allowed. That party does a cash transaction with another party (no lease) to allow him to use the space for a month. Third party sets up a store in the space. Have you, as the property owner, lost your ability to control the use of your space? No. The law is that no-one has use of the space except you, unless you authorize it. You did not authorize use of the space for commercial purposes, so the store is there illegally, and you can take action against it.
This is similar to the situation here. The patent holder (MPEG-LA) and camera manufacturers agreed on terms for the use of the patents, including that the products not be licensed for commercial use. The patent holder does not lose the right to enforce the patent just because you bought the camera from another party. The law is that no-one is allowed to use your patent without your permission, and you did not give permission, so you can take action.
Your car scenario could happen, and it would probably be upheld. But it won't happen. There is no real difference between 'commercial use' cars and 'private use' cars. The car manufacturer has no interest in making such a distinction. So they will negotiate a license with a patent holder that doesn't have such a restriction, even if they have to pay a higher price, because it is worth it to them to have the commercial business. Camera manufacturers on the other hand see a big difference between 'consumers' and 'commercial users', and don't mind having such a line drawn. They would rather negotiate a lower price for the patent in order to meet the price requirements of their biggest market - consumers - and if that means no commercial use of their product (without an additional license being purchased by the user) that is OK with them.
Uh, no. MPEG has nothing to do with 'pictures' or 'prints'. MPEG concerns video. And, yes, if you take videos over 12 minutes long and sell them you need a license from MPEG-LA.
What are you talking about? This article, and every post about it, is discussing VIDEO. Still cameras, prints, and portraits have nothing to do with MPEG or MPEG-LA, because they don't involve video compression.
Now, if you change your argument to 'nothing says I can't use my consumer camera to create and sell commercial videos', then you are wrong. As I explained, you don't need to be a party to a contract that says that, because the LAW says it ('anyone who makes, sells, offers to sell, or uses a patented invention without authorization infringes the patent'. Where did you get your authorization from? Not from the camera manufacturer (who is not the patent holder), because they don't have the authority to give you the authorization.
As to your assertion that such a case would be tossed in a heartbeat, I gave you a link to a case very similar to this that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the parties that were claiming the same thing you are (using a consumer patent license in a commercial setting is legal) LOST. If you have any cases showing otherwise, please present them.
You need authorization to make, sell, offer to sell, or use any patented invention. If a manufacturer has a license to use a patent for a specific thing (say home use), and you have that manufactured thing, then you automatically have authorization to use that thing for it's intended purpose (patent exhaustion). If you buy the thing and use it for a different purpose (say commercial use), which the manufacturer had no license for, then you have no license. It does not matter if you were a party to the agreement (the manufacturer does need to inform you that the product is only licensed for certain use), because in the absence of specific authorization you have no authorization.
Slashdot Mirror
The exceptions are there because our society thinks they are worth it. In order for a lawyer to represent his client the best he can, he needs all the information - even that which is detrimental to his client. If a lawyer could be compelled to testify against his own client the client would be deprived of good representation. In order to have a healthy (mentally and physically) population, people must not be afraid to go to the doctor. In order to have a healthy marriage it is important that the spouses be able to bare their souls to each other. And compelling a priest (eg) to testify against a penitent would go against freedom of religion.
The Fifth Amendment only says you can't be compelled to testify against YOURSELF. There is no 'right not to answer' for any other reason.
It really doesn't have much to do with Facebook, or how difficult the information is to get. It has more to do with the legal definition of expectation of privacy. In everyday usage, people think of something as being public (if everyone has access to it) or private (if only a few people know it). The legal definition is much stricter. For something to be considered legally private only one person must have the information - you (there are a few notable exceptions to this). If something is legally private the court does not have access to it. If you tell ANYONE (*) else the information it is no longer considered legally private, and the court can have access to it.
So, by posting info on Facebook (whose very purpose is sharing information) you are giving up your legal privacy protection.
If the lawyers said to the court 'we noticed that every night she closes the window shades and we hear music in there, and we think she is dancing around the room, so let us put a camera in there so we can find out' the court would deny it, because she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, if she tells someone she is doing that (in person, by phone, through the mail, on the web, etc) it is no longer private.
* The exceptions to the rule are for lawyers, doctors, spouses, and maybe the clergy.
Except that since he was the (part) owner of the Pirates he WAS Major League Baseball
So why didn't any of these other inventors come up with the steam engine before Watt? If Watt was not driven by his desire to make money off his invention how much longer would we have had to wait before there was ANY steam engine? Were Hornblower et al eventually going to come up with a steam engine without having Watt's work to build from? Is there any evidence to support the idea that they would have?
How are the police supposed to do their job if they do not know there has been a crime? According to other newspapers, this guy STILL has not reported the theft of the dog to the police. The fault lies entirely with the guy who decided the best course of action was to complain to the newspapers rather than filing a police report.
"A West Yorkshire Police spokesman added: ‘If this gentleman wishes to report a theft to us, we will look into the matter. However, we are obviously unable to give members
of the public people’s address details.’"
Except that is not the case. You don't pay for a chip to let you know where the dog is, you pay for a chip to help you identify the dog. That is the only service provided by the chipping company.
They don't know the location of the dog (the chip is not a GPS device). The only information they have is the contact information for the PERSON who registered the dog, which may not be any indication of the physical location of the dog.
It doesn't matter though. Walmart (not the consumer) is still on the hook to pay their suppliers. If they don't, the supplier will go after Walmart. The only way CK could possibly come after an individual consumer was if they claimed that Walmart never had the authority to sell the jeans in the first place (ie they were stolen from CK), and that the consumer had stolen goods. If that were the case, then Walmart would be criminally responsible for theft and would have pulled a massive fraud on the consumer and would be sued into oblivion. There is no way that sort of scenario is going to be commonplace.
Nonsense. The Civil Rights Act says you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. There may have been a few more classes added later. It doesn't say you can't discriminate at all (which would be a pretty awful law). There are some very good reasons for 'discrimination' against customers, inability to pay for instance. Can a restaurant throw out customers who are being loud and obnoxious? Of course (in fact, there was just a story on CNN about a restaurant with a 'no screaming kids' policy). Could a bar in Boston post a 'no Yankees fans' sign? Yes. Can an employer 'discriminate' against an applicant based on the fact that he doesn't have the required education? Of course.
I didn't mean it was something new. IBM's first use of it (then called Emergency Backup) on mainframes was in 1996.
You can buy or lease the hardware. The software is licensed under contract.
It seems like the GP is talking about software charges, not hardware. Software can be either monthly fee based or usage based. If it is usage based you must send a usage report to IBM so they can bill you. That is specified in the contract. In either case, the number of and performance of the CPs is calculated into the cost.
Hardware is a different story. With hardware, the number of cores you purchase is not the same as the number you get. For instance, you can buy a 1 core machine, but what you get is 16 cores. Only 1 core is enabled in the firmware though. IBM has offerings (again under contract) where you can buy the right to temporarily enable additional processors instantaneously (like if you lost one of your datacenters and need to transfer the workload to another one). With these offerings, you also need to send usage info to IBM so they can bill you for the time that the additional cores have been enabled.
That is correct.
When configured to run Linux, each core costs approx $125K. When configured for z/OS, each core costs approx $250K. A complete system (not including any storage or software) can cost up to around $30M.
You can write whatever little rants you want claiming all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them true.
Now, I cited an actual Supreme Court case, which apparently you did not read. So here are some of the pertinent things from the actual case, not mere supposition:
This is what the petitioner claimed:
"The owner of a patent cannot, by means of the patent, restrict the use made of a device manufactured under the patent after the device has passed into the hands of a purchaser in the ordinary channels of trade and full consideration paid therefor."
That sounds exactly like the arguments made here, doesn't it?
This is what the SCOTUS had to say about that:
"But that proposition ignores controlling facts. The patent owner did not sell to petitioner the amplifiers in question or authorize the Transformer Company to sell them or any amplifiers for use in theaters or any other commercial use. The sales made by the Transformer Company to petitioner were outside the scope of its license, and not under the patent." ... ." ...Patent owners may grant licenses extending to all uses or limited to use in a defined field. 76 U. S. 799-800; Gamewell Fire Alarm Telegraph Co. v. Brooklyn, 14 F.2d 5; Dorsey Rake Co. v. Bradley Co., No. 4,015, 7 Fed.Cas. 946-947; Robinson on Patents, 808, 824. Unquestionably, the owner of a patent may grant licenses to manufacture, use, or sell upon conditions not inconsistent with the scope of the monopoly.
Pertinent words of the license are these: "To manufacture . . . and to sell only for radio amateur reception, radio experimental reception and radio broadcast reception. . .
Do you understand that? Patent owners CAN restrict use to a defined field (with several cases demonstrating that). Also, UNQUESTIONABLY (their word, not mine) a patent owner can put conditions on the use of a patent.
Now, I understand that you don't like that. I never said I liked it or supported it either, and I wish you wouldn't imply otherwise.
Finally, please point out where I claimed the SCOTUS said things it did not say. And if you have any actual cases backing up your points, please provide them.
I apologize for the insulting statement. I also agree that the manufacturers SHOULD put such a notice in the box (I honestly thought they did, I know the camera I bought came with such a notice). My only point in arguing this is that it really bothers me when people make statements about legal issues that just are not true, such as saying that you don't have to have a license just because you were not party to an agreement. The current situation may indeed suck, and a court test would be nice, but I would hate like hell to BE the court test case!
I'll try, but I am seriously beginning to question your ability to comprehend it.
The things that say there are restrictions on the use of the device (H.264 encoder) are:
1) The fact that it is patented, and
2) US Patent Law which says you need permission from the patent owner to use a patented thing
Now, perhaps you could show me where you got that permission from. Don't say the camera manufacturer, because they don't have the authority to give it to you, regardless of what they do or don't tell you.
If I lease a piece of property from Joe, and later turn around and SELL that property to you, do you own it? Obviously not, because I didn't have permission to sell it to you in the first place. Can Joe now come and either throw you off the property or demand payment from you? Yes indeed. Does the fact that you 'bought' it from me matter in the slightest (as far as you and Joe are concerned)? Nope.
The device is not 'for personal use only'. The device can be used for anything you want, and no-one has anything to say about it.
However, if you are selling videos, you need a license from MPEG-LA (to sell the videos, not to operate the camera). It is not the camera manufacturers responsibility to tell you that (although most do).
I recently purchased a car, and nowhere in the sales or vehicle documentation does it say I need a license to drive the car on a public road. Does that mean I don't need a license?
I also purchased some lumber, and again they didn't tell me I need a building permit to use that lumber to build a house. Does that mean I don't need one?
I don't know where you got the idea the onus is on someone else to tell you what you are required to do. That is YOUR responsibility alone.
If you are in the house-building business it is YOUR responsibility to know what the various codes are and what you are required to do, not the company who sold you the tools you use.
If you are in the video business it is YOUR responsibility to know what licenses and permits are required, not the manufacturer of the camera.
Are you really this dense? How does the line you quoted turn into some sort of 'special patent' rant? Let's try to take this real slow...
You said there is no contract that says you can't sell prints or set up a portait studio.
I pointed out that patents that cover MOVING PICTURES have nothing to do with STILL PICTURES (prints and portraits).
Just for the record, there are millions of OTHER patents that have nothing to do with portrait photography.
Now for the parts that seem so hard for you to understand...
You need a license to sell a video (over 12 minutes long) encoded with H.264. This license comes from MPEG-LA. Purchase of a video camera (ANY video camera) does not include that license. It does not matter if the camera says that or not.
You need a license to drive a car on a public road. Purchase of a video camera (or car for that matter) does not include that license either. Again, neither the camera nor car manufacturers need to inform you of that.
You CAN use your camera for any damn thing you wish. You can make the top-grossing movie of all time with it if you want. Neither the camera manufacturer nor MPEG-LA give a rats ass what you do with the camera.
If you want to SELL your H.264 encoded video you need a license (to sell the video, not use the camera). That license comes from MPEG-LA, not the camera manufacturer.
As explained, no you do not need to agree to anything. The law says you need authorization to use a patented invention. A manufacturer can not sell you something it does not have. The manufacturer does not the right to sell you a commercial license. There is no EULA, but there IS a notification stating you have not purchased a commercial license.
As for 'double dipping': do you know what the fee is that the manufacturer pays for the right to put the tech in the camera? $0.20 (yes, twenty cents, MAX). And no, they are not double-dipping. The only reason you paid that fee is because you bought something you didn't need - a consumer camera. I guess the reason you bought that is because a consumer camera is still way cheaper than a commercial camera that doesn't have an H.264 encoder, but you still complain about the whopping $0.20 that MPEG-LA got?
No, I did not say that. I said it COULD happen. In the very next sentence is said it WON'T happen. Then I listed the reason it won't happen: the car companies are not interested in segmenting the market. Both commercial and private uses are vital to their business. They will not agree to a license structure that treats commercial and private use differently, because it would be bad for their business. Furthermore, it doesn't even make much sense for the patent holder to want such a split. If one transportation company is doing 10X the business of another, they will probably have about 10X as many vehicles, so the patent holder will have 10X the money. That is fair to the patent holder, the manufacturer, and the end purchaser.
On the other hand, there is a very good reason why video patent holders, manufacturers, and consumers would want to split the market. The market for commercial video cameras (units sold) is tiny compared to the consumer market. But the revenues from the videos created using the patent in the commercial market is huge. A video that grosses $500M does not require 5000X the number of cameras that a video grossing $100K requires. So how do you structure the license fees so that they are fair to everyone? If you try to get all the fees from the sale of cameras the camera consumer is paying the whole thing, and the commercial ventures get basically a free ride. That is not fair to the consumer. It would also drive the price of a camera way up, which is not good for the consumer, manufacturer, or patent holder. So the fair thing to do is to split the market. The consumer can get a fairly cheap camera which is good for the consumer and manufacturer. A commercial venture that makes more money pays more than one that doesn't. That is fair to everyone.
Let's say you own a building. You sign a lease with someone. Part of the terms of the lease is no commercial use of the space allowed. That party does a cash transaction with another party (no lease) to allow him to use the space for a month. Third party sets up a store in the space. Have you, as the property owner, lost your ability to control the use of your space? No. The law is that no-one has use of the space except you, unless you authorize it. You did not authorize use of the space for commercial purposes, so the store is there illegally, and you can take action against it.
This is similar to the situation here. The patent holder (MPEG-LA) and camera manufacturers agreed on terms for the use of the patents, including that the products not be licensed for commercial use. The patent holder does not lose the right to enforce the patent just because you bought the camera from another party. The law is that no-one is allowed to use your patent without your permission, and you did not give permission, so you can take action.
Your car scenario could happen, and it would probably be upheld. But it won't happen. There is no real difference between 'commercial use' cars and 'private use' cars. The car manufacturer has no interest in making such a distinction. So they will negotiate a license with a patent holder that doesn't have such a restriction, even if they have to pay a higher price, because it is worth it to them to have the commercial business. Camera manufacturers on the other hand see a big difference between 'consumers' and 'commercial users', and don't mind having such a line drawn. They would rather negotiate a lower price for the patent in order to meet the price requirements of their biggest market - consumers - and if that means no commercial use of their product (without an additional license being purchased by the user) that is OK with them.
Uh, no. MPEG has nothing to do with 'pictures' or 'prints'. MPEG concerns video. And, yes, if you take videos over 12 minutes long and sell them you need a license from MPEG-LA.
What are you talking about? This article, and every post about it, is discussing VIDEO. Still cameras, prints, and portraits have nothing to do with MPEG or MPEG-LA, because they don't involve video compression.
Now, if you change your argument to 'nothing says I can't use my consumer camera to create and sell commercial videos', then you are wrong. As I explained, you don't need to be a party to a contract that says that, because the LAW says it ('anyone who makes, sells, offers to sell, or uses a patented invention without authorization infringes the patent'. Where did you get your authorization from? Not from the camera manufacturer (who is not the patent holder), because they don't have the authority to give you the authorization.
As to your assertion that such a case would be tossed in a heartbeat, I gave you a link to a case very similar to this that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the parties that were claiming the same thing you are (using a consumer patent license in a commercial setting is legal) LOST. If you have any cases showing otherwise, please present them.
You need authorization to make, sell, offer to sell, or use any patented invention. If a manufacturer has a license to use a patent for a specific thing (say home use), and you have that manufactured thing, then you automatically have authorization to use that thing for it's intended purpose (patent exhaustion). If you buy the thing and use it for a different purpose (say commercial use), which the manufacturer had no license for, then you have no license. It does not matter if you were a party to the agreement (the manufacturer does need to inform you that the product is only licensed for certain use), because in the absence of specific authorization you have no authorization.