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: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:14PM (12 children)
Actually, the decision is both rather easy to understand and has profound positive implications. There are two very important points here: patent right expiration at first sale, and the invalidation of 'shrink wrap' licenses.
Patent rights now expire at first sale. While not covered in this case, at present software in the USA is accorded full patent rights. Ergo, software patent rights now expire at first sale. This has tremendous positive implications for the right to repair movement.
Also, this is the first time to my knowledge a shrinkwrap EULA has hit the SCOTUS. They invalidated it near-universally (Ginsberg dissented on this point). This means the majority of shrinkwrap licenses are likely unenforceable and invalid.
As far as I can see, this is massively beneficial precedent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:38PM
Thanks for corroborating exactly my point.
Your whole reply can be summed as "Well, this is the way it is now."
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:50PM (3 children)
That would mean that the EULAs that limit liability [apple.com] for most software producers is also invalid? Example:
So writers of software will be liable? Think Linux.. think cars etc.. loss of data etc. Endless suing.
Regarding patent right expiration at first sale. How do you specifically think this will affect the right to repair movement?
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:56PM (1 child)
It is about time software sellers stop ducking responsibility for their products. We are drowning in an ocean of shitware.
Interesting point about Linux et al. There could be both light and darkness here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @10:39AM
Add prominently to description, downloading page and license: "This software may also erase data randomly, damage peripherals and circuitry, start fires, expose you to malware, virus, phishing, scams."
Then we see who sues for software doing what is advertised.
Or make a law stating that owners of misbehaving software get their money back.
Anyway, since google, MS, apple, oracle, are in the business of making software and don't want to be sued, some way for them to avoid responsibility will always be found.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:51PM
Not the same thing.
That EULA (what you quoted) does not dictate what you can do with the software, resell it, try to launch rockets with it. It merely states it the authors are not liable for any injurys (real or financial or imagined) if the software does not work for you or your application.
That's drastically different than the claimed right to limit your actual use or re-use of a cartridge, or refill it for reuse, or resale after refilling it. You still probably can't make your own exact copies for sale.
This ruling probably puts the kibosh on anti-right to repair claims by tractor manufacturers and such as well.
But it doesn't say you can use your tractor for drag races and still file warranty claims.
I agree this ruling is going to have a long tail, but it doesn't mean anything new for disclaimers of liability, which are already covered by a great body of law.
What this means encryption of ebooks, movies, and music, limiting purchasers to use on one device, sometimes without even the rights to make a backup copy, is as yet undetermined. But it would seem to me that the Kindle Book you bought but can't gift or resell is probably going to run afoul of this ruling sooner or later.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:31PM
First, only copyright is automatically conferred on anything. Patents are only given to those who apply for them after an extensive review. Second, software patents are very rarely issued after the Supreme Court's decision in Alice v. CLS Bank, and very few software patents issued before that decision are likely to survive a challenge based on the Alice ruling.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:12AM
And what will it mean for MS's EULA that basically says "you don't own this software, you're just renting it" .
Will it become "you don't own this printer, you are renting it. If you do something we don't like, we will fine you",?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:46PM
Even if true, that won't help much. The current trend is Software as a Service. With SaaS, you just get an account at the company's servers. The companies have even more control than with copyright and patent law combined, without even needing much help from the law. And on top of that they also get your data.