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This discussion has been archived.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 linuxrocks123 on Wednesday May 31 2017, @01:13AM

    by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Wednesday May 31 2017, @01:13AM (#518018) Journal

    Most people don't have the expert knowledge necessary to make informed choices about the safety of drugs. Some will be tempted by the lower price on the unsafe drug into making a poor decision. Some will be financially forced by their insurance plan into buying the unsafe drug. Some, particularly children, will have no choice whatsoever as to which drug they take.

    This happened more than once already. Some other examples are the 60s thalidomide incidents in Europe and the modern day cosmetic contact lense incidents. What makes you think it won't happen again, or do just not care if it does?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2