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 kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:31PM (2 children)
Lexmark, we have observed you lost the soap on the floor. Prepare for incoming :P
My telepathic senses register a feature with plenty of ink, cheap ink..
Justices:
(0) John Roberts
(1) Anthony Kennedy
(2) Clarence Thomas
(3) Ruth Bader Ginsburg
(4) Stephen Breyer
(5) Samuel Alito
(6) Sonia Sotomayor
(7) Elena Kagan
(8) Neil Gorsuch
So 8 justices participated and out of these 6 back the opinion ie 75%. That should make the decision quite solid. At least until this "mishap" is fixed by appropriate lobby bribery result in a new law. Maybe it will be called "Device suppliers rights protection" or more correctly "Printer manufacturers right to screw people in general".
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:05PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 31 2017, @04:00AM
The summary isn't wrong; GP just misread it. The standard phrasing for SCOTUS decisions is "opinion authored by X, joined by Y and Z" or whatever. This opinion was authored by Roberts and was joined by 6 (other) justices, hence 7-1. You're right that Ginsberg only dissented in part.