Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the think-of-the-poor-rent-seeking-monopolists dept.

HotHardware.com reports:

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.

ABA Journal reports:

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.


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This discussion has been archived.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 kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:42PM (2 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:42PM (#517940) Journal

    The question then becomes. Does first-sale-doctrine apply to the sale elsewhere or does it apply when imported into the jurisdiction of United States?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:48PM (#517987)

    The point was that the ruling settled that.

    A willing sale in another country exhausts the patent rights in this country.

  • (Score: 2) by jelizondo on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:43AM

    by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:43AM (#518049) Journal

    Nope. The ruling is only for products manufactured in the U.S. and sold abroad. If said product is manufactured by a third-party abroad under a license from the patent-holder, this ruling has no effect on that contractual relationship; meaning, it does not apply and the patent-holder can withhold permission to import it to the U.S.

    If your medication was actually manufactured in the U.S. and sold internationally, you can indeed import it from abroad without being sued for “patent infringement” but other barriers might exist, i.e., Customs. (Not the FDA as this medication, by definition, has already been approved for sale in the U.S.)

    But don’t let me go there, the prices paid for medication in the good ol’ U.S. of A. are totally outrageous. (The usual alt-right soylentils will point out the ‘free market’ will take care of it, just after I die I suspect.)