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

71–80 of 319 posts

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

#71

Post by chmod775 »

joshuak wrote: post #62
touchofevil wrote: post #48

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 softw…

That sounds a little better than the ridiculous Autodesk decision, however it sounds trivial to circumvent by simply putting a 'term of license' clause in the EULA. I'd go so far as to say I don't think EULAs should be considered a valid legal instrument.

In the EU it is impossible for normal consumers to sign away most rights intended to protect the consumer.

Misleading the consumer in any way about that can even end in fines.

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

#72

Post by LeifCarrotson »

elipsey wrote: post #57
euyyn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> smartphone makers from being able to blacklist devices that are resold What is that blacklist?

Verizon denied my activation of used phones a couple of times due to a blacklisted IMEI, so apparently they (at least used to) keep an internal blacklist also.

Are you sure it was specifically blacklisted? It wasn't "not whitelisted"?

When I gave my developer edition Galaxy S3 to a friend, having bought it unlocked and used it on Sprint, I had a dickens of a time trying to help them use it on Verizon. Eventually, the answer I got was not that it was different from the version they were selling, nor was it incompatible at the radio level or otherwise wouldn't work on their network, nor did they think it was stolen or otherwise blacklisted, but that the IMEI wasn't prefilled in Verizon's database and they wouldn't add it because we didn't buy it there.

Verizon lost a customer that day. Since then, between myself and my friend and our families, we've probably paid in $6,000 to other carriers in the last 36 months.

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

#73

Post by pitaj »

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…

I was under the impression that John Deere's restrictions were licensing-based. But maybe they rely on copyright as well?

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

#74

Post by desdiv »

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 don't think consumers will bother with anything that hassle-some:

Lexmark: "For $20 you can lease one of our fine cartridges for an indeterminate period of time. Just need your signature on page 2, 5, and 6 of this contract."

Canon, Panasonic, HP, Xerox: "You give me $20; I give you cartridge."

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

#75

Post by ocdtrekkie »

owenversteeg wrote: post #58
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but how often do you really need to buy a printer? And they're so cheap a mild price increase wouldn't harm much. The Canon MG2520 (I think there's a newer version now) is a printer/scanner/copier combo that often retails for $20. (And comes with ink.) Price of ink would fall in exchange, since they have to compete with the off-brand folks.

Hmm, cheapest I found the MG2520 was $30 shipped including ink. Not bad, and still pretty low. I'd expect the minimum for a wireless printer-scanner with ink, shipped, to be $40 or so. $9 shipping, $3 wireless chip, $5 ink, $9 plastic/frame, $5 motors/print heads, that's already $31. (I could be off, of course.) I wonder how much, if anything, Canon loses on the printer, and how many people buy replacement ink.

The $20 price comes and goes. Micro Center was where you could easily pick it up for that regularly. And it's not wireless, FYI.

The new version is the MG2522, which is currently $25 at Micro Center, and a wireless model, the MG3620, is $40.

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

#76

Post by HappyTypist »

gameshot911 wrote: post #65

Can someone clarify one part: >The other option is to buy a cartridge at a discount through Lexmark’s “Return Program.” In exchange for the lower price, customers who buy through the Return Program must sign a contract agreeing to use the cartridge only once and to refrain from transferring the cartridge to anyone but Lexmark. >As a result, even if the restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with its customers were clear…

I don't see any reason why that would be unenforceable, but resellers are not a party to that contract, and there is no contract if you just buy new cartridges and refill those ones.

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

#77

Post by phkahler »

joshuak wrote: post #62
touchofevil wrote: post #48

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 softw…

That sounds a little better than the ridiculous Autodesk decision, however it sounds trivial to circumvent by simply putting a 'term of license' clause in the EULA. I'd go so far as to say I don't think EULAs should be considered a valid legal instrument.

>> I'd go so far as to say I don't think EULAs should be considered a valid legal instrument.

Agreed. The EULA is not even mentioned at the point of sale. Most notably, the company that sold the software often has no idea who has entered into such an (alleged) agreement with them. I thought acknowledgement was a critical part of contract law, but somehow clicking a virtual button in private is claimed to qualify.

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

#78

Post by ckozlowski »

geofft wrote: post #52

I'm a little surprised that Ginsburg dissented here, and also dissented from Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley : naively, she's "liberal", and (at least in my bubble) being "liberal" is associated with wanting less strong IP protection. But I see also that she wrote the majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft , saying that the 28-year extension to copyright terms was constitutional. What's the right way to understand her legal…

I think she's trying to say specifically that patent rights are preserved in the U.S., because that's where U.S. patent law applies.

Her dissent is brief and only partial; and so I think she's only calling attention to a minor point that nonetheless has legal ramifications. Remember that the court's can also be to clarify the laws, and in this case, it seems to me that she took the opportunity to point out a gray area that might come up in the future. I see this "dissent" (if it can really be called that) as a footnote of sorts. "Watch out for these situations here", she's saying. It's not a political stance, but rather pointing out a technicality.

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

#80

Post by colinbartlett »

gameshot911 wrote: post #65

Can someone clarify one part: >The other option is to buy a cartridge at a discount through Lexmark’s “Return Program.” In exchange for the lower price, customers who buy through the Return Program must sign a contract agreeing to use the cartridge only once and to refrain from transferring the cartridge to anyone but Lexmark. >As a result, even if the restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with its customers were clear…

The court doesn't rule on that contract issue. It is not in play in this case at all, as it would require that Lexmark sue its own customers for contractual infringement. The ruling mentions:

> even if the restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with its customers were clear and enforceable under contract law

> and whatever rights Lexmark retained are a matter of the contracts with its purchasers, not the patent law

Post reply on HN