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: 4, Informative) by ese002 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:17PM (1 child)
Because laser printers cost more and have lousy color definition?
If you print often and mostly text or geometric shapes, there is a strong case for laser printers. If you print rarely, with photos being a large chunk, inkjets are a better choice.
Actually, for those who print rarely, this decision is a bum deal. Printers will become more expensive, a cost that can not be avoided. In return, ink will be cheaper, except that you are not printing often, you aren't spending much on ink anyway.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:33AM
That theory has already been dis-proved.
There is third party ink and toner for just about every printer on the market. And printers are still dirt cheap. Their prices are not going up, (still going down actually) because the price of ink/toner has been arbitrarily forced down by in-house refills or commercial refill services. Every Office Supply store has a house brand of ink cartridges, and way back in the 90s we were already having the local guy come to the office and "drill and fill" toner cartridges.
HP and friends are still making money on printers. And they are still making money on toner and Ink. Refill doesn't work forever. Printers don't last forever. The cheap printer as Loss Leader is largely an urban myth. They really can churned out a laser printer for under 200 bucks at a profit.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.