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

161–170 of 319 posts

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

#161

Post by labster »

phkahler wrote: post #128
awinter-py wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

contract-wise it seems from case law they're on pretty steady ground. Of consideration + capacity + intent, capacity is probably the trickiest when you're not in person with the counterparty. I think the more interesting angle of attack is by calling this a contract of adhesion, i.e. saying that the vendor is using their superior market position to force a long and disadvantageous contract on customers. At the point…

What if I say aloud "No, I do not agree to the terms of this EULA, but I'm going to click this button in order to install the software anyway." How about that? You may say "but clicking the button indicates agreement" to which I say it does not unless I actually agree to the terms of the EULA. The EULA is the only thing defining the meaning of clicking the button... Lets suppose a techo-archeologist in 2100 finds an…

He'd enter into a contract with whoever bought Microsoft's IP, presumably OracleApple or Teslabet. Old corporations never die, they just fade away.

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

#162

Post by deong »

phkahler wrote: post #128
awinter-py wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

contract-wise it seems from case law they're on pretty steady ground. Of consideration + capacity + intent, capacity is probably the trickiest when you're not in person with the counterparty. I think the more interesting angle of attack is by calling this a contract of adhesion, i.e. saying that the vendor is using their superior market position to force a long and disadvantageous contract on customers. At the point…

What if I say aloud "No, I do not agree to the terms of this EULA, but I'm going to click this button in order to install the software anyway." How about that? You may say "but clicking the button indicates agreement" to which I say it does not unless I actually agree to the terms of the EULA. The EULA is the only thing defining the meaning of clicking the button... Lets suppose a techo-archeologist in 2100 finds an…

Well, if you sign the contract and the contract is legally "fair" (i.e., you weren't coerced, nothing fraudulent took place, etc.), then it doesn't matter what you say. The EULA isn't the only thing defining what agreeing to the contract means. The general framework of contract law in your country defines it as well.

We can quibble over whether EULAs are enforceable contracts due to one reason or another, but you can't just say, "Well I don't agree with the meaning of the EULA, therefore I'm not bound by the agreement".

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

#163

Post by nhsoe9aoeu »

touchofevil wrote: post #154
nhsoe9aoeu wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It doesn't appear to me that EU citizens are paying a one-time fee for a lifetime license. It appears to me (though I'm no lawyer) that they are paying a one-time fee for a subscription. I don't know whether it's time-limited or lifetime, but it is a distinction with an actual difference, and may affect how EU law regards it.

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

#164

Post by awinter-py »

phkahler wrote: post #128
awinter-py wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

contract-wise it seems from case law they're on pretty steady ground. Of consideration + capacity + intent, capacity is probably the trickiest when you're not in person with the counterparty. I think the more interesting angle of attack is by calling this a contract of adhesion, i.e. saying that the vendor is using their superior market position to force a long and disadvantageous contract on customers. At the point…

What if I say aloud "No, I do not agree to the terms of this EULA, but I'm going to click this button in order to install the software anyway." How about that? You may say "but clicking the button indicates agreement" to which I say it does not unless I actually agree to the terms of the EULA. The EULA is the only thing defining the meaning of clicking the button... Lets suppose a techo-archeologist in 2100 finds an…

Or yeah, what if I speak a language similar to english except the word 'EULA' means 'none of the following applies'.

Or what if I dance around in a circle reciting green eggs & ham whenever I sign anything?

Let me know when you find the court that is willing to hear these questions.

Unfortunately the 'had my fingers crossed' test from SCOTUS US v every 5 year-old was recently struck down.

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

#165

Post by njarboe »

exelius wrote: post #111
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…

I think that this distinction is largely becoming irrelevant in the cloud era. Most software is sold / licensed on a term basis these days, and honestly the industry is healthier as a result. App stores are really the only remaining vestige of "buy once, use forever" -- and I'd guess that the EU isn't interested in going after it thanks to the small dollar amount and huge number of companies who benefit. Software was…

It would be interesting if food was sold this way. Instead of an upfront purchase of atoms and molecules, you license their use and pay a monthly fee. It would be a bit hard to tell which exact atoms came from each food consumed with current tech, but one could do estimates of the expected half-lives of various atoms and molecules in the human body and have people agree to pay according those rates. This would definitely allow for more predictable cash flows to the farmer and the rest of the food processing and delivery system.

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

#166

Post by test6554 »

Steko wrote: post #141
inputcoffee wrote: post #2

Some context for this consequential decision: http://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522826514/supreme-courts-decis...

I wonder if this will affect the various Qualcomm suits. Qualcomm tries to collect patent royalties from (say) Foxconn based on the sale price between (say) Apple and the carrier/consumer. Edit: moved long commentary from FOSS blog to separate thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14448205

If Apple purchased Qualcomm chips and then resold them as part of the iPhone, then it might affect those suits, but this is not the case.

Apple licenses proprietary Qualcomm technology from Qualcomm. Apple uses the technology, but builds its own chips.

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

#167

Post by joshuak »

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #135
joshuak wrote: post #54

Good, but the tip of the issue is licensing. Autodesk[1] has set precedence that all an organization must do to limit the resale of anything is institute a EULA. Simply by asserting that an offer is for a license not the thing being licensed the seller can bypass common law, Lord Coke, and the first sale doctrine. P.S. This also means that expensive professional software like Autodesk's, or anything with such an EULA…

There seems to be a logic gap here if I'm understanding the possibilities correctly. What stops me from founding a company through which I get paid, leveraging that company to purchase 100% of my "assets", then instituting a EULA and selling (at no cost) a lifetime license to use anything I want to myself? As per your logic (as I understand it), I could then declare myself utterly destitute and owning $0 worth of ass…

> My company could also claim $0 worth of assets.

Why?

If the company buys assets and sells or transfer's them to you, the fact they are not assets to you doesn't really change the facts for the company do they?

However, if your company buys stuff with a EULA that prohibits resale then those purchases are an immediate 100% loss. If the company must liquidate the following day those purchases will not contribute to recovering any investment value.

Look at visual effects and post production companies in M&E, a large part of Autodesk's addressable market. These companies are constantly going out of business, and the unrecoverable costs of very expensive software contributes to this volatility.

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

#168

Post by test6554 »

optimiz3 wrote: post #92

Couldn't find the vote without teasing it out of the text - It was an 8-0 decision, with a minor dissent from Ginsburg on what happens when a product is sold in a foreign territory.

Where did they land on the foreign territory scenario? I only saw that the lower courts thought foreign territories did not cause patent rights to expire.

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

#169

Post by test6554 »

bluGill wrote: post #130
desdiv wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

The problem is the cartridge is a significant cost. If Lexmark gets the cartridge back and refills it their costs are lower than their competition. There is a reason HP sends a free shipping return label with all their cartridges: it isn't about being green (though that is a nice bonus), it is about recycling.

Maybe Lexmark could say, give us $140 per month and we will ship you a new cartridge every month with a return label. For every cartridge you ship back, you get a $20 credit on your monthly bill. Then adjust the amount of ink or timing until it is just right for each company.
Post reply on HN