Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the and-copyright-while-you're-there dept.

Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could allow companies to keep a dead hand of control over their products, even after you buy them.  The case, Impression Products v. Lexmark International, is on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who last year affirmed its own precedent allowing patent holders to restrict how consumers can use the products they buy. That decision, and the precedent it relied on, departs from long established legal rules that safeguard consumers and enable innovation.

When you buy something physical—a toaster, a book, or a printer, for example—you expect to be free to use it as you see fit: to adapt it to suit your needs, fix it when it breaks, re-use it, lend it, sell it, or give it away when you're done with it. Your freedom to do those things is a necessary aspect of your ownership of those objects. If you can't do them, because the seller or manufacturer has imposed restrictions or limitations on your use of the product, then you don't really own them. Traditionally, the law safeguards these freedoms by discouraging sellers from imposing certain conditions or restrictions on the sale of goods and property, and limiting the circumstances in which those restrictions may be imposed by contract.

But some companies are relentless in their quest to circumvent and undermine these protections. They want to control what end users of their products can do with the stuff they ostensibly own, by attaching restrictions and conditions on purchasers, locking down their products, and locking you (along with competitors and researchers) out. If they can do that through patent law, rather than ordinary contract, it would mean they could evade legal limits on contracts, and that any one using a product in violation of those restrictions (whether a consumer or competitor) could face harsh penalties for patent infringement.

If you refill the ink in your printer cartridges, you will go to jail?


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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:57PM (33 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:57PM (#483259)

    When you buy something physical—a toaster, a book, or a printer, for example—you expect to be free to use it as you see fit: to adapt it to suit your needs, fix it when it breaks, re-use it, lend it, sell it, or give it away when you're done with it.

    It's a pretty good rule of thumb: "Does it involve a computer in any way, shape, or form? Then hahaha you don't own it, sucker."

    Even when they claim you're buying it. Because lawyers.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:14PM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:14PM (#483268)

      What isn't physical? I've never understood what "physical" means. EVERYTHING is physical.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:47PM (8 children)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:47PM (#483279)

        Patents. IP.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:38PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:38PM (#483298)

          IP is just the name that we give to sufficiently complex phenomena in the universe; IP describes "physical" things.

          When I say I own rounded edges on a smartphone, what I'm saying is that I am the one who gets to decide who gets to make rounded edges on a smartphone; that act of deciding is a process in this universe; it is a "physical" phenomenon—it does not transcend existence.

          I defend this right by retaliating against those who do not respect this claim I make on rounded edges; if you decide without my consent to make a smart phone with rounded edges, I'm going to defend my ownership by having your knees broken.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:16PM (6 children)

            by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:16PM (#483320)

            I am the one who gets to decide who gets to make rounded edges on a smartphone; that act of deciding is a process in this universe

            Well, that's a proposition some would argue. Consult the mind-body problem. [wikipedia.org] If you define the mind as a physical process, then yes, everything that proceeds from it is physical, I guess. Not sure how this conclusion gets us anywhere productive.

            I defend this right by retaliating against those who do not respect this claim I make on rounded edges; if you decide without my consent to make a smart phone with rounded edges, I'm going to defend my ownership by having your knees broken.

            The knee-breaking is something you do in support of your "right," though; you can't use that to prove the idea itself is physical. You don't have a patent on knee-breaking. I could have a business selling police truncheons and sue somebody for copying my product; that doesn't make me a law firm.

            IP also describes things such as movies. Are the characters and plot in a movie something you can physically reproduce (the ideas, not the transfer medium of the viewing)? I suppose one could argue a sufficiently detailed transcript of the film is a physical distillation of the idea.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:12PM (5 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:12PM (#483347)

              I don't even know where to begin.

              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:41PM (2 children)

                by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:41PM (#483362)

                That's what I get for trying to meet you halfway.

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:04PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:04PM (#483377)

                  ... meet me ALL the way.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @09:58AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @09:58AM (#483575)

                  That's how imaginary property laws have gotten to the state they're currently in. People try to meet the abusers at a half way point that's "fair and equitable to all involved". Then 6 months later the abusers are back demanding even more.

                  It's not being unfair to stop giving in to bullies.

                  (I don't mind IP rules in particular. But they've long since passed acceptable limits in duration, punishments, and application.)

              • (Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 24 2017, @04:39AM

                by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday March 24 2017, @04:39AM (#483503)

                IP stands for "industrial protectionism"

              • (Score: 1) by anubi on Friday March 24 2017, @05:13AM

                by anubi (2828) on Friday March 24 2017, @05:13AM (#483519) Journal

                I don't even know where to begin.

                Neither do I.

                This whole concept of "owning" a concept, whether it be how to kindle a fire, rounded edges on smartphones, or whatever makes about as much sense to me as claiming ownership of a gust of wind.

                The only use I see it put to is courtroom drama enriching one party at the expense of another, as we try to monetize everything for the benefit of those who deal in money.

                I still hold to "free enterprise", "competition", and "monkey-see, monkey-do". The other to me is thuggery - as if someone can buy the right from some thug to tell me I can't do the same thing he's doing to make a living.

                --
                "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:50PM (16 children)

      by mhajicek (51) on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:50PM (#483280)

      The same is true of land. If there are construction codes that apply, you don't own it.

      --
      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:56PM (14 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:56PM (#483284)

        And if there aren't codes, maybe you shouldn't buy it, because $deity knows what the previous owner did there with all that freedom.

        Also, you still rent it from the government, not own it, unless you live in one of those (rarefying) places without property taxes.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:42PM (13 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:42PM (#483300)

          There are 2 sides: the seller and the buyer; both what guarantees.

          There's no reason for coercion; all of the goods and services "provided" by a government can be provided by organizations that emerge from voluntary interactions, webs of contracts, conventions, cultural norms, etc.

          A government is just an organization that allocates resources by dictate rather than agreement.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:46PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:46PM (#483302)

            And there'll be no dishonest involved in or disagreement over these interactions and we'll have unicorns that shit our favorite flavor of ice cream.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:16PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:16PM (#483349)

              What I've said doesn't depend on there being no dishonest or no disagreement, or magic.

              • Those very problems are, again, selective forces which induce the evolution of the very insurance/certification organizational structures about which we are talking.
              • How does your "government" solve this problem? It just makes it worse: Now the dishonest, disagreeable people have a culturally acceptable way to coerce people.

              Touché, my ass.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:59PM (9 children)

            by bob_super (1357) on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:59PM (#483310)

            Go ahead and try it.
            I'll keep my inefficient, imperfect and occasionally abusive government, until you prove that actual humans can operate at medium-scale under your system.

            Tribal councils are a great way to administer local justice by agreement, until it's your relatives who get sentenced to get gang-raped.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:19PM (5 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:19PM (#483350)

              Humans already do operate largely in the way that I specify; the vast majority of interactions take place without the aid of a government—even humongous "corporate" deals form, evolve, and end up in dispute resolution solely within "private" structures of contraction negotation, arbitration, and enforcement.

              Your reverence for The State is religious.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:41PM (4 children)

                by bob_super (1357) on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:41PM (#483383)

                And why do they do that? Because they know that failing to do their business within their private confines, brings the trouble and costs associated with the State which looms overhead.
                The government doesn't need to be explicitly a party to an agreement, when it's understood that's it's always there as a last resort in a dispute (most lawyers will tell you that arbitration clauses are BS, which they can get around if they believe a judge will side with them).

                I do not revere any government. I just know that selfish bastards (aka humans) will seize any opportunity they can, regardless of how many they hurt, if they are not afraid that the next entity above them (be it $parent, $council, $deity or $gov), will come to whack them for it.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:47PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:47PM (#483386)

                  There is no reason why there must be a monopoly on violent enforcement of a contract. Indeed, it seems quite obvious that a monopoly would be a BAD thing; better to have competition (a separation of powers, if you will) when it comes to the service of enforcing contracts.

                  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:55PM

                    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:55PM (#483393)

                    Start a war between my Contract Enforcer and your Contract Enforcer?

                    "Today, 5 more buildings were burnt down as the dispute over Alice or Chris paying Dominic for the pizza enters its second month."

                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:52PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:52PM (#483390)

                  Where's the government to protect us from the selfish bastards abusing the government?

                  You've reached the conclusion yourself: You cannot just keep vertically stacking authority; you've got to have horizontal competition; you've got to have a separation of powers, which is provided best by competition within a market.

                  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:03PM

                    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:03PM (#483397)

                    Ask the French (and less spectacularly other Euro countries).
                    The people working for the entity called government should be afraid of the People.

                    If your government is not afraid of the people it serves, and feels impunity for the shit it does (like 95% re-election rates), then you are right to call it tyranny.
                    Cops are the little people. Soldiers are the little people. Private security guards are the little people.
                    The guys at the top have to constantly be reminded that they have no magical protection against the anger on the street.

                    Basics, people, basics...

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:40PM (1 child)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:40PM (#483361)

              All levels of "rule by proxy" "elected officials" etc. can lead to nasty surprises.

              I was pretty shocked at how sideways our HOA got when a few loose cannons got themselves elected - we were a self-governing group of 104 homes, but our charter basically put all decision-making power about the general fund (which was worth about 2 houses) in the hands of the elected board of governors. So, the clowns get in, extend their terms from 1 year to 2, then start entering the neighborhood into outside "management company" and others which both make life unpleasant for a majority of the homeowners and drain the general fund at a 25% higher rate than before, leading to an increase in dues, etc. etc. etc. I sold and left before the thing resolved itself, but it took almost a year to wake up enough homeowners to get them to realize what was going on.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:54PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:54PM (#483371)

                Essentially, these the problems your HOA had, and they are the problems that government has:

                • There is no well-defined agreement; nobody really knows what is permitted—that's why the outcome was a surprise.
                • An agreement that says "one party to this agreement can change the agreement at any time, unilaterally" is NOT a contract; it's a dictate. You cannot play a game when the rules can be changed at any time without agreement of the players.

                Now, your community has seen the problems, and has the opportunity to evolve a more robust framework for the interaction between community members; while a government, too, can evolve in a better direction, the key difference is that community members of an HOA can sell their stake and get the fuck out of there—not only is this difficult when a community is considered to be a "nation" (or when the world is considered to be composed of nations), but a government has access to so many resources that it can exist for a very long time in its corrupted, loathsome, failing status. There is no clean method by which to divest of the failing organization.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @01:50PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @01:50PM (#483630)

              slaves are always spewing government propaganda. speak for yourself loser. i don't abuse my neighbors and i don't need some pigs to keep me on the straight and narrow. keep your statist lies to yourself.

          • (Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 24 2017, @04:42AM

            by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday March 24 2017, @04:42AM (#483508)

            Why not just set up a government though voluntary interaction?

      • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday March 24 2017, @06:19AM

        by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Friday March 24 2017, @06:19AM (#483541)

        Is this a statement about... the necessity of mortgages? Zoning laws/building codes meaning you don't "own" real estate? Are you serious? If so, what absolutist, no-real-scotsman are you putting forth?

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:58PM (1 child)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:58PM (#483308) Journal

      There are so many screwy laws and contracts that are nothing more than outrageously unfair transfers of public wealth into private pockets. Feels like America has become more corrupt. Our publicly funded law enforcement is routinely used against us.

      I'd really rather not be a law breaking rebel pirate deadbeat criminal, but it's tough to avoid. Can't get medical care in the US for a fair price. I've tried. Went round and round for more than a year and couldn't get so much as a plausible explanation let alone a reasonable justification for the prices of some emergency care. You really have little choice but to rebel, tell the doctors (by the action of not paying, if not in words) that you don't agree with their charges, and that you refuse to be gouged. Pay them what Medicare says their services are worth, block the phone numbers of their debt collectors, and go on with your life. So many people are still too naive and trusting on medical billing.

      Drug manufacturers and seed companies gouge patients and farmers shamelessly. Can't use your consumer electronics without being threatened with lawsuits and lectured about "digital theft", though 99% of them are groundless and empty threats that they're just trying to use to scare and bully people, when their propaganda and fake moralizing about starving artists and inventors fails to impress. They're trying to make fixing your own tractor or car illegal. Parking tickets and red light camera tickets are more a money grabbing racket than an honest effort to serve and protect. Same with the War on Drugs, and the War on Sex and Women. There's also Civil Asset Forfeiture. Then there's Wall Street, still running their swindles.

      The whole idea of allowing the patenting of software has been a disaster. I've read that you can't write even a little program without violating patents by the dozens.

      I feel it is a civic duty to break bad laws. Learn what to rebel against, and how to do it. The national 55 mph speed limit was eventually repealed, and that actually had its good points. Was a much better law than some of the crap we live with now.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:43PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:43PM (#483365)

        The funny thing about the "digital theft" messages embedded in DVDs - when my kids were little they were untrustable with DVDs, so I copied all of ours to a server. The copies remove the Piracy lectures, by default - no special effort - it's actually how Hollywood packages the files on the disc.

        It is always kind of jarring when we play an actual disc to have all that crap thrust on our screen, because we see it so rarely otherwise.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:34PM (3 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:34PM (#483359)

      That absolutely did not used to be the case - pre 1990, if you owned a computer, it was yours - yours to make work, yours to maintain, yours to modify as you please. Even when the early internet was creeping in through 38.4Kbaud modems, your computer was still your own.

      Corporate ownership of your e-gear really got rolling with cellphones/smartphones, and now SaaS/Cloud/IoT/death of the desktop is trying to push it out across everything people own.

      You want to own your computer again? Just install Linux - any flavor. As for that fancy IFTTT connected light switch, well - not so much - and it's not because a computer controlled relay in the wall is anything new, those have been kicking around since the 1990s also, it's just because the current crop all demands to talk through a cloud server instead of direct to devices on their local network. It's a big step backwards, and I'd readily trade in all my WeMo gear if there was a reasonable alternative that didn't use the cloud.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:48PM (2 children)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:48PM (#483367)

        You want to own your computer again? Just install Linux - any flavor.

        Oh, I have. But even with that, SmartBoot, TPM, and hardware whitelists are grasping at the fundamental assumption that our hardware will do what we tell it to.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:13AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:13AM (#483589)

          Men used to kill there enemies, you know.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @02:54PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @02:54PM (#483669)

            including for bad grammar

  • (Score: 2) by BananaPhone on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:09PM

    by BananaPhone (2488) on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:09PM (#483266)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by driven on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:55PM (4 children)

    by driven (6295) on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:55PM (#483283)

    When I buy a printer, the #1 factor is how much is the ink going to cost me? I don't care if I have to pay twice as much for the printer if the ink is relatively cheap, because over the life of the printer ink will be the dominant cost.
    If a printer maker prevents me from buying cheap ink, I'll simply move on to a vendor who allows it. My current printer is an Epson WF-3520 and I was able to get ink pretty cheap and it works like a charm. Nice printer, too. So much cheaper to print than my old Samsung laser printer (which I gave to goodwill).

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:08PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:08PM (#483289)

      When I buy a printer, the #1 factor is that it is not a Lexmark. They acquired notoriety for this kind of business practice since years ago.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:12PM

        by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:12PM (#483291)

        I actually bought a Lexmark years ago because I had forgotten about their shady practices.

        I returned it unopened after the "Patent license" printed on the box was kind enough to remind me. Essentially, It claimed that I did not own the print cartridges.

    • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday March 24 2017, @12:18PM (1 child)

      by Geezer (511) on Friday March 24 2017, @12:18PM (#483607)

      Buy cheap HP printers off QVC network specials and such. When they run out of ink, recycle the old printer and buy a new one. Much cheaper than new cartridges, and your printer never wears out. Depending on where you live, the old printers might make a nice deductible charitable donation, further economizing the process.

      • (Score: 0, Redundant) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday March 25 2017, @05:01AM

        by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Saturday March 25 2017, @05:01AM (#484029)

        You don know that new printers come with half-full cartridges, right?

        And charities generally find such donations useless. They have no idea if your donation works. They have to buy a $40 cartridge to find out.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:58PM (3 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:58PM (#483309) Journal

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court seems to be heading in the wrong direction regarding IP law:

    Expanding copyright to cover apparel. [bloomberg.com]

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:06PM (#483313)

      Sorry we patented the V neck, you'll have to make a W neck or some stupid bullshit. Also, god help you if you want to put buttons on the right side, Disney owns that one.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:06PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:06PM (#483314)

      Trump! Trump! Trump!

      The sound of the swamp being drained into my bank account is glorious!

      • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday March 24 2017, @05:34AM

        by captain normal (2205) on Friday March 24 2017, @05:34AM (#483526)

        Naw...that sound is your bank account being drained by the swamp pump.

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday March 24 2017, @01:33AM (4 children)

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday March 24 2017, @01:33AM (#483469) Homepage Journal

    The submitter and possibly the author of the article (I didn't read it) is confusing patent law and copyright law. Printer companies use copyright law for their printers, because patents only last 20 years, while corporate copyrights last 95.

    Patent law has nothing to do with use after purchase, but copyright law does.

    Also, some folks assume there are laws that there aren't. For instance, like my last blog post taking aim at web sites that try to say that visiting their sites means you agree to their "terms of service" when the actuality is that by posting content on the open internet, you agree that anyone can use it for any legal purpose.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 24 2017, @04:50AM

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday March 24 2017, @04:50AM (#483511)

      No, Lexmark uses Patent law.

      The reason is that Patent law allows you to prohibit others from using your patented invention. With copyright laws, Independent development is a defence.

      My best guess is that they consider a simple print-out manufacturing. As such, they are able to require a patent license for using their patented process.

    • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 24 2017, @05:09AM (2 children)

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday March 24 2017, @05:09AM (#483518)

      Copyright is supposed to be exhausted upon purchase (first sale doctrine). As such, copyright can not be use to impose terms after sale. That is why copyright-based EULAs say something like: "by clicking 'agree'...".

      Around Windows Vista or 7. Microsoft changed their EULA to read: "By using the computer you agree....". The manufacturer also has a notice saying "Windows is considered an integral component ... If you was to return (the unused OS) for a refund, you must return the entire machine". IMO, this is a Patent license. If you install GNU/Linux or FreeBSD, you are still paying the Microsoft tax (Patent license) that allows you to actually use your computer.

      We have Independent verification from Barnes and Noble [networkworld.com] that this is the case. Essentially, when you buy and Android phone, you are paying $15 for a Windows phone license. Your phone also has it's features restricted by Microsoft.

      A true copyright-based license is Copyleft [gnu.org]. Instead of taking rights away (which Copyright law does not have the power to do: due to "first sale doctrine"); it grants rights above and beyond the default license codified in copyright law (which allows things like fair dealing or fair use, depending on jurisdiction).

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:11AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:11AM (#483588)

    "If you refill the ink in your printer cartridges, you will go to jail?"

    THEN FUCKING SHOOT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUING YOU OR ARRESTING YOU UNTILL THEY ARE DEAD.

    Is it that hard?

    Men used to kill for much less.

    Low-T women's nation.

    Just kill your enemies: you have nothing to live for anyway: women banned everything good long ago.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @01:54PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @01:54PM (#483632)

      i agree with the killing part but i don't see how it's women's fault. it's greedy man-whores who are ruining the nation/world, women are just now getting their turn in smallish numbers.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @07:44AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @07:44AM (#484057)

        Women banned child brides in 1880.

        Then alchohol, and pretty much everything else a man might want.

(1)