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

181–190 of 319 posts

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

#181

Post by codedokode »

deong wrote: post #162
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…

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.

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

#182

Post by URSpider94 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #139
asr wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you are hoping for is a situation where manufacturers will sell printers at a loss and then also sell ink at cost, I don't think that's a long-run equilibrium. If you are looking for printers where you can get ink at cost in exchange for paying a bit more up front, that's available now: https://epson.com/ecotank-super-tank-printers Kodak also did this ~10 years ago [1] but I cannot figure out if they still us…

Thanks for the link to the Eco-Tank/Super Tank printers from Epson. I have ordered one of the wide-format ones to see how well it works. Sad that the 'print only' wide format is only available outside the US. Seems like 'print only' is the 'manual transmission' of the printer market :-) What I always hope for, and never expect, is people competing and using engineering quality as a competitive discriminator. I want t…

I've heard this point expressed by lots of people with regards to different products in the markets, i.e. "I would pay a lot more for the product if it did x."

The fact that such a product doesn't exist tells me that either there aren't enough consumers like you out there to make a market at an acceptable price, or that consumers like you are willing to defect and buy a cheaper product, if it's cheaper by a large enough margin.

Again, not doubting your desires, but the market is giving you its answer to your offer ...

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

#183

Post by AnimalMuppet »

bluGill wrote: post #124
mbreese wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, assuming the contract was valid. Lexmark could in that case sue their customers that sent cartridges to a re-manufacturer. The only one with a relationship with Lexmark is their customer, so that's the only entity they could sue. (However, given that this isn't a case involving Lexmark and a customer, the court didn't rule on that contract, just acknowledges the possibility.) "If the patentee negotiates a contra…

Maybe, but the remanufacturer would argue back that they didn't take ownership of the cartridge, they just added toner which never transferred ownership.

When I take my car in for an oil change, the shop doesn't take ownership for an hour...

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

#184

Post by codedokode »

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.

If a seller wants to impose some conditions of course he should do so before selling his product rather than try to deceive a customer after purchase. Only a dishonest seller would do such a thing.

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

#185

Post by vmarsy »

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…

> Do these coffee machine vendors seek to use patents to protect their sales of coffee?

A couple years ago this was a debate in France, Nespresso lost but it was because of anti-competitive behavior[1]. There's apparently[2] plenty of 3rd party nespresso pods : around 50 brands worldwide.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/nespresso-open-sour...

[2] http://www.beveragedaily.com/Processing-Packaging/Coffee-cap...

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

#186

Post by adrianmonk »

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…

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 speed up the construction of a building) because it doesn't result in any in-game item I own.

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

#187

Post by stale2002 »

asr wrote: post #121
ChuckMcM wrote: post #84

Yay, hopefully this will translate into a non-crazy ink refill situation which will translate into a much reduced price in ink cartridges. My hope is that the following will occur; 1) People who sell re-filled cartridges, and offer to refill your existing cartridges will no longer suffer malicious lawsuits from HP & Lexmark. 2) That will increase the supply and create a price competition between re-fillers. Making it…

If what you are hoping for is a situation where manufacturers will sell printers at a loss and then also sell ink at cost, I don't think that's a long-run equilibrium. If you are looking for printers where you can get ink at cost in exchange for paying a bit more up front, that's available now: https://epson.com/ecotank-super-tank-printers Kodak also did this ~10 years ago [1] but I cannot figure out if they still us…

Well then the companies that are selling the printers at a loss will have to change their business model or go out of business.

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

#188

Post by zeeveener »

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.

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

#189

Post by URSpider94 »

Glyptodon wrote: post #51
DannyBee wrote: post #18

In practice it means people will still be able to stop you from doing things with stuff you own. Just not using patent rights. Lexmark's real problem here is that its enforceable contracts are usually with the resellers, and so enforcing against a third party purchaser is trickier, so it tried to use patent law instead. (It has plenty of contracts, including on the wrapping of the printer cartridges, I'm just stickin…

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

There's no particular reason to make it a rental. They can still put whatever contractual restraints they want on a sale, they just have to enforce those under contract law, not via patent law.

The entire reasoning for bringing a patent lawsuit is that it allows them to sue the refillers/resellers, instead of having to sue millions of individual customers who might have violated a shrink-wrap contract with Lexmark. Going into a cartridge rental business, besides adding a ton of overhead, wouldn't really change that -- they'd still need to go after the renters one at a time.

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

#190

Post by jmcdiesel »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #183
bluGill wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but the remanufacturer would argue back that they didn't take ownership of the cartridge, they just added toner which never transferred ownership.

When I take my car in for an oil change, the shop doesn't take ownership for an hour...

They also don't sell your car to another person...

Its not quite analogous

Post reply on HN