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

301–310 of 319 posts

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

#301

Post by tripzilch »

matt4077 wrote: post #287
WilliamDhalgren wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's an optimistic way to frame the situation; there's heavy opposition from the content industry to limits to geoblocking, and unsurprisingly the industry seems to have support within the commission (Oettinger at least - perhaps the fact he now left the Digital Economy and Society position helps). I'm not confident at all they'll be able to completely ban geoblocking in one go. Hopeful they will at least poke some…

> Oettinger at least - perhaps the fact he now left the Digital Economy and Society position helps). It certainly has lowered my blood pressure–he's now in a much more important position. But that means that people will actually stop him if he continues to embarrass himself in the way he previously did. There'll be exceptions for sports broadcasts, and maybe other content where there is a reason legitimising a differ…

Funny how "let the market decide the price" is suddenly a much less attractive option when it means making way less money.

Are French newspapers also suddenly a lot cheaper when sold in Austria? Of course not. They're more expensive in fact, because of transport and the cost of stocking a relatively unpopular item.

Now, these two costs don't matter for digital/streaming media. So imagine that they are negligible for French newspapers, too. Would they be sold in Austria for super-cheap, with just a slim margin on the price of paper they're printed on? I kind of expect the price to be roughly the same, actually.

The only reason that digital/streaming media get to pretend to be "different" is because they started out with the technological means to enforce market segmentation before regulation got wind of it. And that ability is incredibly profitable, to the detriment of the consumer. Which is why we regulate it. And now they don't want to give back something they really didn't have any right to in the first place.

Note that I'm not claiming either side of whether these streaming media should be the expensive local price everywhere, or the cheap everywhere-else price. Just that the fact that the market value of something differs extremely between regions, is an argument for regulation of market segmentation, not against.

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

#302

Post by rhizome »

jawns wrote: post #53
distances wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1) As with many of the tricks that printer companies use to dissuade people from buying off-brand inks, if enough printer manufacturers did it, consumers might find that they have few other options -- especially if they've had poor luck with third-party inks. 2) I pay $3 a month for HP's Instant Ink program. It allows me to print up to 50 full-color pages a month with my inkjet printer, and when one of the cartridges…

1. This seems like collusion would be necessary

2. I have to think it's pretty hard to establish that a consumable is subject to a lease. What is returned at the end of the lease?

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

#303

Post by tripzilch »

awinter-py wrote: post #164
phkahler wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty sure that last one would go the other way, actually.

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

#304

Post by xraystyle »

24gttghh wrote: post #293
icantdrive55 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the right day, you can get a high end watch for a lot less than going into a boutique. I bought a Omage Aquaterra, with the big white dial for $1400 years ago. This watch was going for $3500 in the authorized retail stores. Swatch took Costco to court, and lost. There's no factory warranty, but most of these new high end watches will keep perfect time for 10 plus years. Oh yea, Costco does have some watchmaker tha…

Besides the obvious battery life and water-resistant depth, what is the functional difference between that $1400 watch and the $20 Casio I just bought for my girlfriend?

High end watches serve the same function as jewelry. They're also magnificent pieces of art and engineering in many cases.

If you just want something that keeps time, the $20 Casio is fine. In fact, most people I know just look at their phones. However, there's elegance and sophistication present in a luxury watch that you don't get with a simple digital watch.

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

#305

Post by [deleted] »

tremon wrote: post #281
bdhess wrote: post #227

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 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. True, but the maker of Chateauneuf cannot prohibit a reseller from exporting its products to that territory either. That content-providers have been able to prohibit this, is only because of copyright. And since copyright is a government-granted monopoly, it does follow that the…

[deleted]

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

#306

Post by rkangel »

zeeveener wrote: post #188
3JPLW wrote: post #12

The text is the same, but I find the official PDF better typeset and much more readable: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf

What an amazing waste of space on the paper... I mean, yes margins are good, but when you lose 60% of the page to them they might be overbearing.

My guess is that it is typeset for a particular journal of law - whatever is used to officially document SCOTUS decisions, with an appropriate column size for that. The additional electronic publishing is just using the same format but slapping it in the middle of A4/Letter.

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

#307

Post by deong »

codedokode wrote: post #181
deong wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The contract should be signed before buying the software, not when a consumer has already paid for it or wasted his time and Internet traffic to download it. Imagine if you bought something and then learned that you have to pay again to be able to use the item. A contract should be beneficial for both parties. But EULA only limits consumer's rights without giving everything in exchange.

It gives the consumer access to the software.

I agree that the fact that you only see them after the sale is a problem, though one that would be "solved" to some degree if every vendor could be reliably relied on to honor the terms that say "if you don't agree, return it to the vendor for a refund".

There are bunches of problems around EULAs, but the general concept of an agreement you must adhere to in order to legally use the product doesn't seem especially legally shady to me. Or at least not in the ways referred to by the commenter I was replying to.

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

#308

Post by ruste »

nyolfen wrote: post #300
24gttghh wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides the obvious battery life and water-resistant depth, what is the functional difference between that $1400 watch and the $20 Casio I just bought for my girlfriend?

people who like expensive watches (ie other rich people) can tell that his is expensive, so he's part of the ingroup. it's an impractical amount of money to spend, even at his steep discount, on something that is also functionally outmoded for most people by smartphones, and thus acts as a high-cost (honest) social signal. some people also like sophisticated physical mechanics (likely including GP, since he can repai…

It's kind of interesting that we've come full circle. We started with pocket watches and moved to wristwatches when it was too inconvenient to take something out of your pocket to check the time in the trenches of WWI. Now we've transitioned back to pocket watches in the form of a phone because it's "more convenient."

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

#309

Post by deong »

Retra wrote: post #242
deong wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you don't agree to the terms of the agreement then you don't have an agreement. Half the software I use has EULAs that were "agreed to" by some other third party.

And if you don't have an agreement, you have no right to use the software.

The execution of the EULA as a thing you don't get to see up front introduces problems, for sure. But I don't see anything blatantly illegal about an agreement that says, "you must adhere to these terms to use this software".

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

#310

Post by Retra »

deong wrote: post #309
Retra wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't agree to the terms of the agreement then you don't have an agreement. Half the software I use has EULAs that were "agreed to" by some other third party.

And if you don't have an agreement, you have no right to use the software. The execution of the EULA as a thing you don't get to see up front introduces problems, for sure. But I don't see anything blatantly illegal about an agreement that says, "you must adhere to these terms to use this software".

Define "use." What is it that I do not have a right to do? Look at other peoples' phone screens? I didn't agree to the iOS EULA. Can I listen to the music coming out of my partner's laptop? I didn't agree to any music app EULA.

>But I don't see anything blatantly illegal about an agreement that says, "you must adhere to these terms to use this software".

That is not an agreement. I often cannot agree to those terms, because I do not know what they are. And I will use the software regardless, because "use" means nothing specific unless we have an agreement on what that means as well.

EULAs are "agreements" that do not require agreement, that often bind someone to do something they cannot reasonably do.

Post reply on HN