Earlier quoted context omitted.
Justices typically recuse themselves from cases that pre-date their nomination.
But they could decide to jump in?
The Justices pretty much set their own rules, so sure, probably.
SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold
21–30 of 319 posts
Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold
#22Wasn't apple using patents to stop modding of their magsafe cables?
Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold
#23This is a pretty big deal. It is great to finally start to see what patents where supposed to be, which was to protect the inventor until they could become established in the market. Not as a tool to stifle innovation. Very interesting outcome.
Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold
#24Can somebody explain, what does the word ‘exhaust’ mean? It doesn't seem like it's being used in the plain-English sense here.
Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold
#25This is really similar to the concept of 'first sale' in copyright law, which similarly prevents the copyright holder from using copyright to restrict what a buyer does with the object. Glad to see it extended to patent law as well.
Yes they both stem from common law disfavouring restraints on alienation.
Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold
#26When you can cite Lord Coke in your opinion, I guess it's practically mandatory to do so. > As Lord Coke put it in the 17th century, if an owner restricts the resale or use of an item after selling it, that restriction “is voide, because . . . it is against Trade and Traffique, and bargaining and contracting betweene man and man.” 1 E. Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England §360, p. 223 (1628)
Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold
#27Some context for this consequential decision: http://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522826514/supreme-courts-decis...
Thanks! The usage being litigated (and confirmed lawful) was this:
> A Lexmark refill toner cartridge costs about $130. It's not cheap. So there are businesses that have sprung up that take empty Lexmark printer cartridges, refill them and then resell them for a lot cheaper.
Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold
#28Outside of the narrow case involving printer cartridges, what other implications and precedents can we expect this to set? Can it stop smartphone makers from being able to blacklist devices that are resold, for instance?
> smartphone makers from being able to blacklist devices that are resold
What is that blacklist?
Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold
#29Outside of the narrow case involving printer cartridges, what other implications and precedents can we expect this to set? Can it stop smartphone makers from being able to blacklist devices that are resold, for instance?
No. In practice it just stops people for suing for patent infringement over devices that are resold.
Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold
#30You better be glad it went this way, or you would have no reasonable property rights. All objects may have contained an unknowable restriction on their use or ownership. Everything could have what is tantamount to an easement and you wouldn't know what it was unless you found out how it was first sold.
Fortunately sanity on basic notion of property rights remains within the SCOTUS.