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

261–270 of 319 posts

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

#261

Post by awinter-py »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #236
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…

You have cited class action and the uniform code of commerce. If EULA contains mandatory binding arbitration and a no class action clause, both your ideas are dead in the water. Per the SCOTUS contract law supersedes class action. Your idea for a class action is dead. Mandatory binding arbitration is not required to follow any law but the AAA. The arbiter may ignore the UCC. The UCC concerns are now dead as well. Eve…

I'm not a lawyer nor a consumer law expert.

My theory of the case is that if the goods delivered were known to be unfit by the vendor, consideration was not met and the contract wasn't formed.

Some of these contracts waive the implied warrant of merchantibility. Not sure which jurisdictions allow that. Not sure if the warrant of merchantibility is still 'implied' if a specific use is advertised and the product isn't fit for that use.

I suspect the unconscionability test in contract law is stronger in contracts of adhesion.

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

#262

Post by [deleted] »

mbreese wrote: post #97
gameshot911 wrote: post #65

Can someone clarify one part: >The other option is to buy a cartridge at a discount through Lexmark’s “Return Program.” In exchange for the lower price, customers who buy through the Return Program must sign a contract agreeing to use the cartridge only once and to refrain from transferring the cartridge to anyone but Lexmark. >As a result, even if the restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with its customers were clear…

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…

[deleted]

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

#263

Post by rabboRubble »

How does this case compare to Monsanto vs Bowman? If you recall, this case pertained to a farmer that bought seeds from a local farmers association, then applied Roundup guessing that some/all of the seeds were GMO. Monsanto argued he violated their patent. Bowman argued that the GMO patent was exhausted after the first sale. He lost.

This Lexmark case seems to undermine the Monsanto case. I don't understand this inconsistency between the two cases.

Anybody able to clarify why these are different?

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

#264

Post by zurn »

joshuak wrote: post #62
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…

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.

Also in most business contexts employees have no right to sign contracts on behalf of their employer.

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

#265

Post by delecti »

rabboRubble wrote: post #263

How does this case compare to Monsanto vs Bowman? If you recall, this case pertained to a farmer that bought seeds from a local farmers association, then applied Roundup guessing that some/all of the seeds were GMO. Monsanto argued he violated their patent. Bowman argued that the GMO patent was exhausted after the first sale. He lost. This Lexmark case seems to undermine the Monsanto case. I don't understand this inc…

Because using the resulting soybeans as seeds constituted creating unauthorized copies of a patented object.

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

#266

Post by rabboRubble »

delecti wrote: post #265
rabboRubble wrote: post #263

How does this case compare to Monsanto vs Bowman? If you recall, this case pertained to a farmer that bought seeds from a local farmers association, then applied Roundup guessing that some/all of the seeds were GMO. Monsanto argued he violated their patent. Bowman argued that the GMO patent was exhausted after the first sale. He lost. This Lexmark case seems to undermine the Monsanto case. I don't understand this inc…

Because using the resulting soybeans as seeds constituted creating unauthorized copies of a patented object.

Thank you... I guess that makes some sort of sense. Now if Lexmark can modify their printer cartridges to print and replicate themselves, Lexmark might might find cover under the Bowman case!

I wish I could hand the SC justices 10 seeds each, with each 10 seed packet comprised by 5 GMO seeds and 5 non-GMO seeds. If the justices could visually sort the GMO and non-GMO seeds correctly, their ruling is actually "followable". If the product in question appears on the surface to be a natural object without patentability, extending patent protections to something that is indistinguishable from a non-patented object and self replicates seems incredibly academic.

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

#268

Post by politician »

politician wrote: post #247
kevin_b_er wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does one avoid being locked into a mandatory binding arbitration agreement? For example, suppose I run a website that contains a TOS such that it requires visitors to deposit into my bitcoin account scaled by marketcap and a MBAA. When the Google crawler comes by, do I hit the jackpot?

Well, I found this article which seems to present a case where the decision went against the idea of "drive by" mandatory binding arbitration agreements, so I don't think my get rich quick scheme will work.

Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. http://www.blankrome.com/mobile/index.cfm?page=resource&&vie...

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

#269

Post by [deleted] »

bcrescimanno wrote: post #233
algesten wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do hope EU gets on top of Apple/Google/Netflix/HBO/etc soon. It's supposed to be One Market, yet these all impose territory restrictions where content in Spain is not necessarily available in France and vice versa.

Former Netflix employee here. I do hope the EU gets on top of Content Owners soon. In my time at Netflix, we often worked hard to negotiate global content deals; however, it's far more lucrative for the content owners to sell for each market individually. I suspect that the other players in this space feel the same way; all of them are held hostage by the content owners.

[deleted]

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

#270

Post by Nition »

caf wrote: post #248
giobox wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think so, but the BBC found similar problems when launching their streaming services. Annoyingly I can't find the link, but IIRC the BBC originally looked into making everything it had ever made in its giant archives available to stream. Even for the content the BBC produced and owned internally, which is a huge amount, they determined it simply wasn't possible to offer the full BBC back catalog all the time on…

The simplest fix might be a mandated license for streaming old content where the royalties go to a collection agency and can be claimed by the rightsholders when they finally show up.

Maybe limit the collection time as well, so e.g. Any funds that have been sitting without a valid claim for more than a year go back to the BBC.
Post reply on HN