SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the think-of-the-poor-rent-seeking-monopolists dept.
Score one for the little guys. In a precedent-setting decision handed down this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a company's patent rights are forfeited once they sell an item to a consumer under the "first sale" doctrine. This idea was central to Impression Products, Inc. v Lexmark Int'l, Inc. and is a major blow to companies that sell their printers for (relatively) low prices and then recoup any losses on the sale of expensive ink and toner cartridges. [...]
"Extending the patent rights beyond the first sale would clog the channels of commerce, with little benefit from the extra control that the patentees retain," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts contended that Lexmark's heavy-handed approach to discouraging cartridge remanufacturers only emboldened them to find new and innovative ways to circumvent the company's defenses.
A patent holder that restricts the reuse or resale of its printer ink cartridges can't invoke patent law against a remanufacturing company that violates the restriction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.
The court ruled that Lexmark International's patent rights are exhausted with its first sale of the cartridges, despite restrictions it tried to impose.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion (PDF), joined in full by six justices. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch didn't participate in the case.
Additional coverage by Consumerist.
Doesn't the Supreme Court care how many lawyers this will put out of work? Think of the Lawyers! And the effect on commerce for those selling ink at $8,000 a gallon.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 31 2017, @03:32AM (3 children)
Unfortunately, not everything is nice and dandy - the software is still covered by the copyright laws.
As such, in the "right to repair" cases, still no modifications of the original firmware are allowed under this precedent, you'll need to wipe clean it clean (which I think the present case now allows) and replace it with your own.
BTW, the manufacturers aren't forced to give you a way to replace the firmware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 31 2017, @04:26AM (2 children)
I'm not 100% certain, but I believe copyright can't stop you from modifying software you have purchased - it only stops you from distributing such derived works.
And obvious solution if you wish to distribute a modification, is to distribute patches against the official version - just as was done for so long with Minix before Linux came along and ate it's lunch by employing a more liberal license.
>BTW, the manufacturers aren't forced to give you a way to replace the firmware.
Nope, but countless tinkerers will work out ways to do so, and my guess is that this will makes it far more difficult to stop them.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 31 2017, @05:55AM
Good point.
Also, I don't see what's the inter-relations between this court decision and DCMA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Wednesday May 31 2017, @03:36PM
Copyright restricts the creation of derivative works, which includes modifying software you have purchased.