SCOTUS: Patent Rights Over a Printer Cartridge Are Exhausted When It Is Sold • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by Omniusaspirer » Wed, May 31, 2017, 5:04 AM UTC

joshuak wrote: post #167

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

If I'm licensing from my company, what legal mechanisms force that asset to still be owned by my company? Can I not license it to myself under some vague EULA terms in which the company gets it back upon my passing, but I'm forbidden from reselling (and thus it's not an asset for me either)? If the key to this is the "licensing" of a product forbidding resale, I'm not seeing how that isn't a financial black hole into which assets disappear.

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

#272

Post by will4274 » Wed, May 31, 2017, 5:23 AM UTC

touchofevil wrote: post #260

tzs wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be reading too much into all of this. Oracle sued alleging copyright violation. The ECJ ruled that what UsedSoft was doing was not a copyright violation. Applying that to Steam, it would imply that if I sold someone my Steam key for a game I had purchased I would not be violating copyright. It does not necessarily imply that Steam has to make or allow the key to work for the buyer. That's out of scope…

The UsedSoft v Oracle case is specifically about and whether or not a licensee can resell the software they have purchased. "On 3 July 2012, the ECJ handed down its landmark decision in UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp (C-128/11), ruling that the owner of copyright in software cannot prevent a perpetual licensee who has downloaded the software from the internet from selling his ‘used’ licence. This decision…

Yes, the copyright owner cannot prevent the licensee from selling the license, but the copyright owner also does not have any obligation to continue hosting a cloud service, to authenticate the existing license on a different account using their cloud service, or to otherwise assist the licensee in transferring the license.

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

#273

Post by derefr » Wed, May 31, 2017, 5:34 AM UTC

will4274 wrote: post #272

touchofevil wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UsedSoft v Oracle case is specifically about and whether or not a licensee can resell the software they have purchased. "On 3 July 2012, the ECJ handed down its landmark decision in UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp (C-128/11), ruling that the owner of copyright in software cannot prevent a perpetual licensee who has downloaded the software from the internet from selling his ‘used’ licence. This decision…

Yes, the copyright owner cannot prevent the licensee from selling the license, but the copyright owner also does not have any obligation to continue hosting a cloud service, to authenticate the existing license on a different account using their cloud service, or to otherwise assist the licensee in transferring the license.

But they might be under an obligation to not build licensing infrastructure into their software that bound licenses to accounts in the first place, in a way that technically prevented users from transferring them. That could be seen as a form of DRM restricting users from reselling something they're legally able to re-sell, and the courts would Not Like That, for the same reason they don't like things like warranties not transferring on resale.

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

#274

Post by stordoff » Wed, May 31, 2017, 5:50 AM UTC

kevin_b_er wrote: post #239

brlewis wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. statute is supposedly the same. A valid contract involves consideration from both parties. After you've bought something the contract is set. One party can't subsequently say, "oh in addition you have to agree to this." Unfortunately law isn't what got written into statute or precedent yesterday. Law is what happens to you in court today.

Please stop talking about "valid contract" or "consideration" here. The EULA almost certainly contains a provision on mandatory binding arbitration. The validity of the contract may be ignored. Under "BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. JOHN CARDEGNA, ET AL." and "Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson" mandatory binding arbitration overrides a challenge to the validity of the contract. The arbiter will decide if the contract is v…

Per Rent-A-Center:

> There are two types of validity challenges under § 2: "One type challenges specifically the validity of the agreement to arbitrate," and "[t]he other challenges the contract as a whole, either on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement (e.g., the agreement was fraudulently induced), or on the ground that the illegality of one of the contract's provisions renders the whole contract invalid." Buckeye, 546 U.S., at 444, 126 S.Ct. 1204. In a line of cases neither party has asked us to overrule, we held that only the first type of challenge is relevant to a court's determination whether the arbitration agreement at issue is enforceable. [...] But that agreements to arbitrate are severable does not mean that they are unassailable. If a party challenges the validity under § 2 of the precise agreement to arbitrate at issue, the federal court must consider the challenge before ordering compliance with that agreement under § 4.

Could one not attack the agreement to arbitrate on the grounds that no binding agreement could ever have been reached in the circumstances? Even severing the arbitration clause from the remaining of the contract, it seems it could be argued that there was no agreement to arbitration, as there was never any intention to enter into an agreement of any kind (I'm assuming the claimant would argue that they knew the EULA was not valid as a contract and thus ignored the terms). This seems especially so as the FAA specifies "[a] written provision in [...] a contract" - there was never any intention to create a contract by at least one of the parties.

Even if the argument does not hold, framing in such a way would require the courts to consider it (the validity of the agreement to arbitrate) rather than it just passing it directly to the arbitrator.

Perhaps that's just a hopeful reading of the case; it just seems absurd to me as an English lawyer (degree, non-practising) that the arbitration clause can be plucked out and enforced when the contract itself is a farce.

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

#275

Post by pmontra » Wed, May 31, 2017, 6:15 AM UTC

chias wrote: post #251

adrianmonk wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most mobile apps have moved to a model with in-app purchases. I wonder if this rule applies there. If a game is free, but I spend $1.99 on 500 gold coins (in-game currency), does the law require that I be able to sell the gold coins? What about if I use them to buy virtual non-consumable items (like permanent character upgrades)? I assume the law wouldn't apply to consumable items (like spending 50 gold coins to spee…

Generally speaking, this would be a very poor result (from the perspective of said game owners). Pretty much all of us would have our credit card processing contracts revoked, because in all "regular" contracts (e.g. Stripe, Braintree, etc. etc.) you may not use their service to sell goods which can be "readily resold for cash". If that was the legal result, these applications would probably need to stop accepting EU…

Italy here. Many owners of small shops and small restaurants go to supermarkets to buy stuff they resell because sometimes their dealers don't deliver all they need or not often enough: being small put those shops to the end of the list.

I wonder if the contracts are the same here or if processors just don't want to know because they still make money twice from any of those sales.

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

#276

Post by pitaj » Wed, May 31, 2017, 6:18 AM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #146

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?

Software licenses are copyright licenses.

No, as in the machines are licensed from JD, and therefore they can't modify the software.

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

#277

Post by LoSboccacc » Wed, May 31, 2017, 6:34 AM UTC

aaron_m04 wrote: post #256

bluGill wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is quite likely that Lexmark sold the cartridge to a reseller (think walmart) who sold it to the consumer. Thus Lexmark may not be able to sue the end users successfully because there was no contract - though they could sue the reseller (walmart in this example). Of course suing your customers is a PR disaster even if you would win. Suing resellers is a bad idea as they will never carry anything you make again whi…

What they could do is make the cartridge inoperable without online activation, in which the customer has to agree to terms of use. Damn, that's evil...

they do already with the printer it'd be interesting if that could cover usage of purchased accessory

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

#278

Post by cm2187 » Wed, May 31, 2017, 6:48 AM UTC

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…

Software vendors often prevent you from transfering the license from an old PC to a new PC. I don't know what's the legal ground for that (outside of OEM product). For instance Microsoft will not let you activate an Office 2010 license anymore.

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

#279

Post by Confusion » Wed, May 31, 2017, 6:53 AM UTC

kevin_b_er wrote: post #239

brlewis wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. statute is supposedly the same. A valid contract involves consideration from both parties. After you've bought something the contract is set. One party can't subsequently say, "oh in addition you have to agree to this." Unfortunately law isn't what got written into statute or precedent yesterday. Law is what happens to you in court today.

Please stop talking about "valid contract" or "consideration" here. The EULA almost certainly contains a provision on mandatory binding arbitration. The validity of the contract may be ignored. Under "BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. JOHN CARDEGNA, ET AL." and "Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson" mandatory binding arbitration overrides a challenge to the validity of the contract. The arbiter will decide if the contract is v…

  The EULA almost certainly contains a provision [..]

That's begging the question. The question is whether any provision in the EULA is relevant at all.

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

#280

Post by richrichardsson » Wed, May 31, 2017, 7:51 AM UTC

bdhess wrote: post #227

azernik wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scope of the Single Market is broader than that - it includes standardization of weights and measures, standardization of product names, etc. - rules that apply to private companies, and are meant to break down extra-legal obstacles to trade.

> The scope of the Single Market is broader than that - it includes standardization of weights and measures, standardization of product names, etc Well historically individual states had their own regulations regarding weights/measures and product names, and that authority was transferred to the new market when it was created. These types of regulations ensure a level playing field between buyers and sellers, and are…

> It doesn't necessarily follow that the maker of the Chateauneuf ought to be required to distribute it in a particular geographic territory.

Exactly. There are some awesome products that I can't buy in the UK, because no-one imports and sells them, that are available in France etc., and vice versa. Of course I'm free to go and buy them myself and bring them back without duty (for the next couple of years at least, after that, on vera).