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

151–160 of 319 posts

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

#151

Post by ab5tract »

schoen wrote: post #66
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…

Justice Ginsburg is definitely known as an IP maximalist. Some people have wondered if she's been influenced by her daughter's views on IP, since Jane Ginsburg (a colleague of Eben Moglen's at Columbia!) is one of the most influential copyright law professors and has taken a maximalist view in many copyright controversies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Ginsburg > (at least in my bubble) being "liberal" is associ…

I wish I could go back in time to ensure that Americans never started using "liberal" to mean anything other than "one who advocates for liberalization of trade and economics".

This is what it means in Europe. It took me a good long time after moving to start hearing it with its international meaning, but now I find the Americanized form absurd in its conflation.

In other words, liberals--in the international sense of the word--absolutely 100% endorse IP maximalization and indeed all forms of corporate ownership, rent, and public infrastructure transfer.

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

#152

Post by indolering »

zardo wrote: post #104
pitaj wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They did, untill it they lost the ability to do so under the DMCA back in 2015. All though they could be re-allowed in 2018. The library of Congress gets to reinterpret it every three years.

It will be renewed: there is zero evidence of John Deere being harmed by others performing warranty-voiding repairs.

That and it effectively divides up lobbying power against the DMCA. It doesn't matter if the analog loophole effectively dooms all forms of DRM on music, video, and books or that video game DRM is always hacked within a few months. What matters is that snake-oil salesmen have convinced Hollywood that it's a good idea and they have a very effective lobbying group.

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

#153

Post by PascLeRasc »

post_break wrote: post #140

Apple really pissed me off about this. Magsafe is not licensed. Buy Magsafe bricks, cut the end off, and make a battery that can charge MacBooks? See you in court. http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/11/01/hypermac_to_be_reb...

Apple hasn't made a similar product in the seven years since this case. That's ridiculous that they would discourage accessories for their product. That's free R&D for them.

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

#154

Post by touchofevil »

nhsoe9aoeu wrote: post #143
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…

FCPX doesn't work that way. If you purchased it on its release date 5 years ago, you essentially bought a subscription of free updates that continue through today. Many of these have been major releases with major new functionality, not just minor bug fix updates. This is very different from the old system of buying something like Word (or FCP 7) in a box, getting a few minor updates to fix bugs, and when the new maj…

It's not a question of whether FCPX is a good value. If an EU citizen pays a one-time fee for a lifetime license of FCPX they are supposed to be able to resell that software according to the Oracle vs UsedSoft ruling. Apple has not built a mechanism into their App Store to allow users to transfer licenses to one another, which means they are not complying with the EU ruling.

This applies to every software product in their store (and Google's Play Store) that is bought for a one-time fee in exchange for a lifetime license in the EU.

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

#155

Post by test6554 »

So a company signs a contract for cheaper ink that requires them to return the cartridges to Lexmark and only Lexmark.

Then companies willfully break the contract and send their cartridges to a 3rd party. Lexmark sues the third party and courts throw out the suit.

Lexmark can either tighten enforcement and restrictions on their own customers as well as sue them, or stop the program all together. I assume they will just stop the program and only sell the more expensive new cartridges going forward.

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

#156

Post by cromulent »

01572 wrote: post #129

Will companies now save more money on toner? Is there anyone selling a reverse-engineered, refillable pod for the coffee machines that only accept pre-filled proprietary ones? Do these coffee machine vendors seek to use patents to protect their sales of coffee ? Edit: I know Keurig and Nespresso are the well-publicised examples, but I was thinking of the others. I assume with reasonable confidence there are others st…

Lidl sell Nespresso compatible capsules.

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

#157

Post by vixen99 »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #123
joshuak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, that doesn't work. Specifically because none of the conditions of the EULA apply to the sale unless you were presented it before you paid for the product. If it's possible to purchase the product in such a manner where you are not presented the EULA before you bought it, you can ignore a lot of it's conditions.

its conditions

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

#158

Post by howard941 »

gpm wrote: post #134
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…

IANAL, likely not, it sounds very similar to Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co. [0] which found that since Suppiger "is making use of its patent monopoly to restrain competition in the marketing of unpatented articles, salt tablets, for use with the patented machines, and is aiding in the creation of a limited monopoly in the tablets not within that granted by the patent." it was barred from enforcing the patent an…

1942...A golden oldie!

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

#159

Post by asr »

gnicholas wrote: post #105
socalnate1 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this a good thing? I'd rather not companies obfuscate the true cost of the things I buy.

You make a good point that it is good for consumers to be informed. But it is also a good thing for sellers to be able to price discriminate between high-volume and low-volume users, which is made possible by making more profit on the ink than on the printer. If they could not do this then printers would be more expensive than most people would want to pay, even though the cost of production is actually less. So ther…

This is often called "metering" and I agree it can be a good thing if, for example, you are selling an experience good where people cannot accurately predict how much they will want to pay for it until they try it--it allows you to charge less up-front.

But I think in practice when you see this used in consumer goods sales, it's likely because the manufacturer is exploiting psychology in which unsophisticated consumers do not accurately predict their costs. For example: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/121/2/505/1884013/Shrou...

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

#160

Post by test6554 »

gist wrote: post #83
Glyptodon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All they really need to do is make cartridges rentals instead of sales, no?

Perhaps also by a clever rebate scheme. Product price is $180. Rebate is $40. Applying for and getting the rebate necessitates signing of a 'contract' which prohibits certain action. [1] [1] May not hold up in advanced legal cases but enough of a leg to stand on to get the ball rolling.

Same model as before where you are contractually required to return it, except you get a rebate after the cartridge is returned within a certain timeframe.
Post reply on HN