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, @10:50PM (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.