Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the and-copyright-while-you're-there dept.

Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could allow companies to keep a dead hand of control over their products, even after you buy them.  The case, Impression Products v. Lexmark International, is on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who last year affirmed its own precedent allowing patent holders to restrict how consumers can use the products they buy. That decision, and the precedent it relied on, departs from long established legal rules that safeguard consumers and enable innovation.

When you buy something physical—a toaster, a book, or a printer, for example—you expect to be free to use it as you see fit: to adapt it to suit your needs, fix it when it breaks, re-use it, lend it, sell it, or give it away when you're done with it. Your freedom to do those things is a necessary aspect of your ownership of those objects. If you can't do them, because the seller or manufacturer has imposed restrictions or limitations on your use of the product, then you don't really own them. Traditionally, the law safeguards these freedoms by discouraging sellers from imposing certain conditions or restrictions on the sale of goods and property, and limiting the circumstances in which those restrictions may be imposed by contract.

But some companies are relentless in their quest to circumvent and undermine these protections. They want to control what end users of their products can do with the stuff they ostensibly own, by attaching restrictions and conditions on purchasers, locking down their products, and locking you (along with competitors and researchers) out. If they can do that through patent law, rather than ordinary contract, it would mean they could evade legal limits on contracts, and that any one using a product in violation of those restrictions (whether a consumer or competitor) could face harsh penalties for patent infringement.

If you refill the ink in your printer cartridges, you will go to jail?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 24 2017, @05:09AM (2 children)

    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday March 24 2017, @05:09AM (#483518)

    Copyright is supposed to be exhausted upon purchase (first sale doctrine). As such, copyright can not be use to impose terms after sale. That is why copyright-based EULAs say something like: "by clicking 'agree'...".

    Around Windows Vista or 7. Microsoft changed their EULA to read: "By using the computer you agree....". The manufacturer also has a notice saying "Windows is considered an integral component ... If you was to return (the unused OS) for a refund, you must return the entire machine". IMO, this is a Patent license. If you install GNU/Linux or FreeBSD, you are still paying the Microsoft tax (Patent license) that allows you to actually use your computer.

    We have Independent verification from Barnes and Noble [networkworld.com] that this is the case. Essentially, when you buy and Android phone, you are paying $15 for a Windows phone license. Your phone also has it's features restricted by Microsoft.

    A true copyright-based license is Copyleft [gnu.org]. Instead of taking rights away (which Copyright law does not have the power to do: due to "first sale doctrine"); it grants rights above and beyond the default license codified in copyright law (which allows things like fair dealing or fair use, depending on jurisdiction).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday March 31 2017, @05:16PM (1 child)

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday March 31 2017, @05:16PM (#487180) Homepage Journal

    Again, it is NOT patent law. Patents and copyrights are as different as dogs and cats. As to the "by using this you agree", I have a little to say about that on my blog. I don't believe those "agreements" are legally binding, because of (as you say) the first sale doctrine. Note that it is NOT legal to copy copyrighted items, but it is legal to do anything else you wish with them; I can't say, for instance, "by buying my book you agree not to use it as a doorstop". [mcgrew.info]

    Well, I could say that, but it would have no legal standing.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 31 2017, @06:23PM

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday March 31 2017, @06:23PM (#487218)

      You don't explain why it is not Patent law.

      Patents are stronger than copyright in that you are allowed to prohibit people from using the patented technology.