Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff

nationaleconomicseditorial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff

#21

Post by delecti »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #7
CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #3

This case was covered on HN recently, in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446261 I think this editorial is making this case out to be more than it is. There are many ways that a company can work to restrict a person's ability to modify a product that they have purchased. Patent infringement is one way, and that argument's effectiveness has been reduced. But there are other ways that a person's ability can be re…

I was going to mention something similar. Someone, somewhere, is looking at all the ways you can headline the same information to generate clicks[1]. I've seen a number of people make this particular leap though, that people will cite this as a precedent for either reversing or defending lawsuits against post sale use. [1] https://xkcd.com/1283/

I've also seen someone use this same SCOTUS decision to say that video game streaming rights got protected. That's like 4 levels of wrong.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff

#22

Post by URSpider94 »

jeffdavis wrote: post #18

Can't lexmark just change it to a rental agreement? Use these cartriges until they run out, and then return them. If you fail to do so, lexmark doesn't care -- the point is that they would avoid exhausting their patent rights.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that you can't have something that looks like a sale and call it a rental. If Lexmark wants to rent printer cartridges, they'd have to spell out a term for the rental (can't be indefinite), collect rents, make reasonable attempts to reclaim their property from deadbeats, etc.

They'd also have to carry all those cartridges on their books as inventory, and therefore conduct audits, depreciate the value, etc.

The law does not generally look kindly on "hacking" - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can't call it a swan just because that would be more convenient for you.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff

#23

Post by jaredklewis »

yladiz wrote: post #9

Here is the ruling if anyone is interested (the opinion starts on page 6): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf I think this article is taking what the ruling says and bringing it a bit far. Essentially this suit was about Lexmark suing a "remanufacturer", Impression Products, Inc., that takes used ink cartridges and refills them, instead of the consumer returning them to Lexmark, for parent i…

This case rules on patents because the case before them was about patents. But for me, when I read the decision I got sense that the court felt the pendulum had swung too far away from consumers, and that things need to be balanced out with a stronger view of the first sale doctrine.

Given this change in thinking, I am optimistic future cases dealing with non-patent issues will yield similar results.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff

#24

Post by yladiz »

slededit wrote: post #13
yladiz wrote: post #9

Here is the ruling if anyone is interested (the opinion starts on page 6): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf I think this article is taking what the ruling says and bringing it a bit far. Essentially this suit was about Lexmark suing a "remanufacturer", Impression Products, Inc., that takes used ink cartridges and refills them, instead of the consumer returning them to Lexmark, for parent i…

You're right - without fixing the copyright loop hole you don't have the right to repair things with software lock outs.

I do think that eventually you will be able to buy the parts for repairing your phone from the manufacturer (how that system will be set up, I'm not sure) but I would imagine that software locks would also be tied to that. As in, the software won't be able to tie your specific display or motherboard to your phone and not let you repair them. I'm actually curious about how the warranty and insurance will work in that case, since currently if you attempt to open your device its warranty is voided. I'm guessing that if you damage it due to your own repair attempt, you can have the manufacturer repair it but you will pay full price (insurance wouldn't cover it).

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff

#25

Post by B0073D »

extrapickles wrote: post #16
jfoutz wrote: post #5

Man, if only they'd made the cartridge play a little tune when the chip is disabled. Then they could do the full DMCA game. Seems like the key to modern security is to have something copyrighted behind a terrible lock

TrackIR uses a shitty poem as part of its initialization routine so it will fall under copyright so the makers can control who writes software for it.

Do you have a source for that? (no pun intended)

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff

#26

Post by yladiz »

jaredklewis wrote: post #23
yladiz wrote: post #9

Here is the ruling if anyone is interested (the opinion starts on page 6): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf I think this article is taking what the ruling says and bringing it a bit far. Essentially this suit was about Lexmark suing a "remanufacturer", Impression Products, Inc., that takes used ink cartridges and refills them, instead of the consumer returning them to Lexmark, for parent i…

This case rules on patents because the case before them was about patents. But for me, when I read the decision I got sense that the court felt the pendulum had swung too far away from consumers, and that things need to be balanced out with a stronger view of the first sale doctrine. Given this change in thinking, I am optimistic future cases dealing with non-patent issues will yield similar results.

Maybe, but this suit rules only on patents and you can't infer beyond that. Take, for example, this line in the case (on page 10, under pp II A):

> The single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under contract law...

IANAL, but this makes me think that the case would only be applied to patent issues, because it doesn't rule about anything concerning contracts. That kind of suit will have to come later.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff

#28

Post by URSpider94 »

The ruling in this case simply says you can't sue someone for patent infringement if they are re-selling, refurbishing or re-manufacturing your product without their permission. Further, it says that you can't sue someone for US patent infringement if they import your goods originally sold overseas. That's because patent rights are "exhausted" with the first sale, like copyright.

This ruling does not:

- prevent a seller from forcing you to sign a contract saying you won't re-manufacture or refill their product, and sue you if you violate that contract

- require a seller to do anything else to help you repair your product

- prevent Lexmark from suing cartridge refillers for patent infringement if the materials that they are using for the refill (inks, toners) violate a Lexmark patent

Why did Lexmark use patent in the first place? Well, the problem with using shrink-wrap agreements is that then you have to sue your customers - yuck. Lexmark's customers are the ones violating the agreement, the resellers don't have any kind of contract with Lexmark so they aren't in breach. Also, you'd have to sue thousands upon thousands of customers to chill the market - reminds me of the Napster days when record labels were trying to sue individual downloaders. Suing on patent law was a creative way to go after the resellers - but it didn't work.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff

#29

Post by URSpider94 »

yladiz wrote: post #24
slededit wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right - without fixing the copyright loop hole you don't have the right to repair things with software lock outs.

I do think that eventually you will be able to buy the parts for repairing your phone from the manufacturer (how that system will be set up, I'm not sure) but I would imagine that software locks would also be tied to that. As in, the software won't be able to tie your specific display or motherboard to your phone and not let you repair them. I'm actually curious about how the warranty and insurance will work in that…

For any of this to happen, there would have to be some serious changes in either sentiment of device makers or the legal environment. And, honestly, the number of people who want to repair their own phone is basically zero.

Where I live, there are dozens of shops that can replace just about any part of your iPhone, except the secure elements (fingerprint sensor). They don't seem to have trouble getting parts. So really we are taking about a mechanism for consumers to buy OEM parts one-off. I don't see that happening.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff

#30

Post by [deleted] »

yladiz wrote: post #24
slededit wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right - without fixing the copyright loop hole you don't have the right to repair things with software lock outs.

I do think that eventually you will be able to buy the parts for repairing your phone from the manufacturer (how that system will be set up, I'm not sure) but I would imagine that software locks would also be tied to that. As in, the software won't be able to tie your specific display or motherboard to your phone and not let you repair them. I'm actually curious about how the warranty and insurance will work in that…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN