SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the seems-pretty-black-and-white-to-me dept.
A corporate squabble over printer toner cartridges doesn't sound particularly glamorous, and the phrase "patent exhaustion" is probably already causing your eyes to glaze over. However, these otherwise boring topics are the crux of a Supreme Court case that will answer a question with far-reaching impact for all consumers: Can a company that sold you something use its patent on that product to control how you choose to use after you buy it?
The case in question is Impression Products, Inc v Lexmark International, Inc, came before the nation's highest court on Tuesday.
As with many SCOTUS disputes, Lexmark is a devil-in-the-details case that could have wide-ranging implications for basically everyone who ever buys anything — so, all of us.
Here's the background: Lexmark makes printers. Printers need toner in order to print, and Lexmark also happens to sell toner.
Then there's Impression Products, a third-party company makes and refills toner cartridges for use in printers, including Lexmark's.
Lexmark, however, doesn't want that; if you use third-party toner cartridges, that's money that Lexmark doesn't make. So it sued, which brings us to the legal chain that ended up at the Supreme Court.
Source: Consumerist
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday March 27 2017, @07:20PM (11 children)
Get a dozen large customers of laser printers into a room, U.S. Gov btw is a really big customer. Hammer out a standardized toner cart, printer tech is end stage and not innovating anymore so this should not be a problem. Same for a drum unit the standard toner tank attaches to. Submit the standard to ISO. Declare that in two years all will insist all printer purchases will only be units that conform to the standard. Add in fluffy declarations about how it is being done to reduce waste, save the Earth, save puppies, whatever. Problem solved. Printer prices would rise a bit, but price per page would drop for the corporate environment due to the massive drop in consumables prices. Wouldn't be long before they made it to the home user. If the industry refused to take the hint, repeat for a standard ink cart for inkjet and a color laser printer standard.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday March 27 2017, @07:56PM (3 children)
It doesn't really work like that with COTS stuff WRT military NSNs and whatever GSA uses for non-military purchases
http://www.armyproperty.com/Resources/NSN-Listings/Printers.htm [armyproperty.com]
You request a printer like requesting a vehicle part, like getting issued a power cable.
The way supply works is interesting. Aside from NSNs which are more or less like a UPC code, there are also DODIC codes which are kind of commodity short names for wordy things, and lot numbers which are serial numbers for commodities. Adding to the fun commodities usually have a NSN too.
The Venn diagram is anything with a DODIC and a lot number has a NSN but not everything with a NSN has a DODIC and lot number if its not an interchangeable commodity.
I bet you could get a DODIC for bulk toner for refills, but its mysterious how you'd get "generic commodity laser printer" thru that system.
Sometimes I get nostalgic for the good old days when I was in the Army, then something like this comes along to remind me why I'm happy to be out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27 2017, @08:09PM (2 children)
How do they handle ordering something like printer paper? I know it all doesn't come from the same manufacturer.
I mean they cant have a different NSN for different brands of letter sized paper of a standard weight.
If they can manage that then you should be able to have a generic laser printer with the same minimum specs.
I remember our MREs used to be made by different companies. Somedays everyone would have them marked manufactured by this company in GA, a week later another company in Texas. The only noticable difference would be some companies wed find more M&M and some more Skittles. If they can order generic meals from multiple companies I would assume generic printers are just as feasible. Maybe this one is slightly faster, or this one has the extra setup to duplex, but you should still be able to narrow it down to a handful of different models that all use the same consumables.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday March 27 2017, @09:14PM
Not proposing a generic standardized printer, only the toner and drum. Once those are a standard commodity the printers can't lock you to their consumables but can be as innovative in other ways as they want to be. MFP devices for example.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2017, @09:33PM
How do they handle ordering something like printer paper? I know it all doesn't come from the same manufacturer.
You hope it doesn't come from a single manufacturer. I recall prior to the Iraqi invasion, they had one source for small arms ammunition even though there were probably dozens of businesses that could have made it to their exacting specifications.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27 2017, @08:02PM (2 children)
And businesses lament all the time why they are subject to so much regulation.
This is a perfect example of why. Because they can not be trusted to not try to rip off their customers. The reason they are subject to so much regulation is because they did stupid stuff in the past, a sufficient number of times, that a politician got interested in correcting that stupid thing, and a new regulation saying "don't do stupid thing X" was born.
The printer makers would scream "too much regulation" from your suggestion. But as it is clear that they can not be trusted ($9,000 per ounce ink jet printer inks anyone?) your suggestion is exactly what should happen to them. Force them into a pure commodity market and be done with them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2017, @09:34PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @03:46AM
The problem isn't patent protection in general, it is the stupid stuff the gets approved for protection. The guy who invented the printer cartridge deserved a patent. Every other container of ink/toner used in printing is just a refinement on the original idea and shouldn't be eligible for a patent. If the patent office wouldn't give so many patents we would not have this problem.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27 2017, @09:01PM (3 children)
[coded message follows] SJW Special Task Force, jmorris Division, progress report addendum. Mission may be complete sooner than estimated. Subject now advocating tyrannical government imposition of standards on printer manufacturing. Support for single payer health insurance is not far off. [end coded message]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday March 27 2017, @09:20PM (2 children)
No, I'm proposing that the customers of these products come together and, since the manufacturers have no incentive to, propose a standard which they would all then mandate on their suppliers. In exactly the same way almost everything that gets standardized is done, one end or the other of the supply chain sees a benefit in ending a bunch of incompatible parts and standardizes. The only government mandate would be in the fact the U.S. government happens to buy a hell of a lot of toner for all the paperwork it smothers us with.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27 2017, @09:34PM (1 child)
Tomato tomato
Using financial clout to force a standard is basically the same thing. It just makes you feel better because it is done with "market forces" and we all know you believe "market is God".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @07:55AM
OMG! jmorris responding to our message! Aren't these messages supposed to be invisible to other Soylentils? No, you say? What would be the point, you say? Alright, point taken. But it does seriously undermine my self-estimation as an undercover SJW operative. I just hope we have done jmorris some good. He needs all the help any Soylentil could give him, poor bastard! [end unencoded message] SJW Central, please respond with further instuctions. Please use secure channel, this time? [end, end unencoded message]