Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold

law.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 319 posts

Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold

#41

Post by tr1ck5t3r »

awjr wrote: post #14

In short, the sale of a product does not allow you to control what is done with the product afterwards through patent law. I'm assuming this is almost similar to attempts to use copyright law to stop the sale of products on the grey market. http://www.bipc.com/court-rebuffs-attempt-to-use-copyright-l... I do wonder though, if they changed the underlying software on the cartridges they would get into trouble. I do not…

Tell Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Apple, Samsung, HP, Dell, GM, Volvo, Ford, VW, in fact any company that makes things. What a little stick in a wasps nest!

Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold

#42

Post by _delirium »

DannyBee wrote: post #25
ryandamm wrote: post #11

This 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.

Something I've searched for but not found a layperson introduction to: any idea why that doesn't apply to real estate? Deed restrictions that purport to put conditions on how property can be resold have repeatedly been upheld, except for a really narrow, somewhat recent carve-out for no-selling-to-black-people deed restrictions, which were held unenforceable, but specifically because they were racially discriminatory [1], not because of any general principle that covenants can't restrict alienation of property.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer

Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold

#43

Post by evanb »

conistonwater wrote: post #24

Can somebody explain, what does the word ‘exhaust’ mean? It doesn't seem like it's being used in the plain-English sense here.

It's the verb/adjective sense, as in "I ran a marathon and am exhausted." rather than the noun sense, as in "The car's exhaust was unpleasant to breathe." In the sense used, "exhaust" means "to use up" or "to reach the limit" (in that you can go no further). The patent holder's patent rights are exhausted at sale, or the patent holder exhausts their patent rights at sale.

Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold

#44

Post by lisper »

chc wrote: post #36
ryandamm wrote: post #11

This 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.

The first sale doctrine was already reflected in both areas of law. What this decision is about is whether patents are still exhausted if you sell the product with an EULA-style list of restrictions. Lexmark argued that because they specified that the cartridges were only to be used once, they retained their rights and ability to sue. The court determined that the restrictive sale contract did not prevent patent exha…

Not quite. The court determined that sale exhausts their ability to sue under patent law. They explicitly left open the possibility that they could sue (and prevail) under contract law. (The problem with suing under contract law is that they would have to sue the original purchaser, which presents significant logistical challenges.)

Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold

#45

Post by distances »

jvandonsel wrote: post #34

Could Lexmark argue that they're not really selling the cartridges to you, but are instead leasing them for an indeterminate period of time?

I think you'd then have to enter some kind of a lease agreement, which would be a big turn-off for customers that would like to just buy a replacement cartridge without signing a contract.

Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold

#46

Post by zerocrates »

_delirium wrote: post #42
DannyBee wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they both stem from common law disfavouring restraints on alienation.

Something I've searched for but not found a layperson introduction to: any idea why that doesn't apply to real estate? Deed restrictions that purport to put conditions on how property can be resold have repeatedly been upheld, except for a really narrow, somewhat recent carve-out for no-selling-to-black-people deed restrictions, which were held unenforceable, but specifically because they were racially discriminatory…

Restrictions and covenants and so on are very common, but actual restraints on alienation or sale itself aren't so much, at least not enforceable ones; they're heavily disfavored in the realm of real estate as well.

Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold

#47

Post by balls187 »

awjr wrote: post #14

In short, the sale of a product does not allow you to control what is done with the product afterwards through patent law. I'm assuming this is almost similar to attempts to use copyright law to stop the sale of products on the grey market. http://www.bipc.com/court-rebuffs-attempt-to-use-copyright-l... I do wonder though, if they changed the underlying software on the cartridges they would get into trouble. I do not…

Interesting that even with importation fees, it was cheaper for Costco to import watches.

Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold

#48

Post by touchofevil »

If you want to learn about a really interesting aspect of the "first sale doctrine" and how it applies to software, you should have a look at "Vernor vs Autodesk" in the USA and compare it to "Oracle vs UsedSoft" in the EU. Basically, in the USA the courts determined that if a company sells you software, but in their terms & conditions claim that they are merely granting you a license, then you can't resell the software b/c you aren't considered to own it. In the EU however, if a company sells you a permanent life-time license in exchange for a one-time fee, the courts determined that you aren't merely licensing that software, you own it and you are allowed to resell it.

I think these different rulings haven't been fully appreciated yet. For example, if you buy Apple's Final Cut X for $299, you should be allowed to resell that software if you live in the EU, but there is currently no way to transfer licenses between users, preventing users from reselling it. It seems to me that by preventing users from reselling their software, Apple (and the Google Play Store) are probably violating EU law on this matter.

Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold

#49

Post by owenversteeg »

roywiggins wrote: post #13

When 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)

Semi-off-topic: I've noticed that Coke's writings are a bit more similar to "modern English" than other things I've read written in the 1600s. This surprised me, because he was a judge and probably wrote in formal language for the time. Formal language, to me, seems perpetually set back to the way people talked about 60-100 years previously. Thus you'd expect Coke to sound like he's writing in the 1500s, but instead he sounds like an 1800s writer.

Perhaps I've caught a time-traveler? If so, to Coke: I'm having some friends over for dinner tonight, and you're welcome... email's in my profile if you need directions ;)

Re: SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold

#50

Post by SeanDav »

I can't believe that the printer market has not been disrupted by someone offering a decent printer without ridiculous ongoing printer cartridge costs.

I just bought a £99 printer that will cost more than £99 in printer cartridge costs after just a few months of casual use and I did not spot any alternatives.

Post reply on HN