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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday May 31 2017, @01:10AM

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday May 31 2017, @01:10AM (#518017) Journal

    I'm suggesting people could have a choice.

    We DO have a choice. And we have collectively chosen to hire some people who work for all of us to prevent crap "medicine" from being pedaled by as useful and safe when it may be neither

    Nobody is holding YOU to that choice. You can buy all the components and concoct your own formula and try it out on your wife.

    We've just all chosen to set up barriers to prevent you from selling to our unsuspecting children. We call it the FDA or the EMA or Rozdravnadzor depending on where you live.

    Its not a perfect system. But its better than what you propose. We've had what you propose before. It didn't work.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5