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.
Related Stories
Ryan Sullivan cancelled what he thought was a "random charge for $4.99 per month from HP called 'Instant Ink'". Then his printer refused to print:
It turns out that HP requires its customers to enroll HP Instant Ink eligible printers into one of the Instant Ink plans, and continue paying a monthly subscription in order to be allowed to use the device.
But where's the need to come up with different plans coming from, you may wonder? HP explains: the company charges a fee based on the number of pages a customer prints each month, and the page count is shockingly monitored remotely.
Naturally, the scheme is not advertised as a rather unusual application of DRM, but a way for customers to save time and money. Still, it would seem HP has not exactly gone out of its way to explain all the consequences to those customers.
HP's terms of service also say that these eligible, internet-connected printers can be remotely modified in several ways, including by applying patches, updates, and "changes" – without notifying customers.
Another thing HP can see thanks to the Instant Ink program is the type of documents you print, identifying them by extension as Word, etc., documents, PDFs, or JPEG and other types of images.
Additionally, the HP cartridges have been locked to specific printers for quite a while now.
Earlier on SN:
US Customers Kick Up Class-Action Stink Over Epson's Kyboshing of Third-Party Ink (2019)
Xerox Is No More (2018)
Meg Whitman Resigns (2017)
Supreme Court Lets Consumers Refill Ink Cartridges (2017)
HP to Issue "Optional Firmware Update" Allowing 3rd-Party Ink (2016)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:20PM (16 children)
However, I doubt the Supreme Court's reasoning is sound.
The whole legal system is such trash, that the SCOTUS just chooses the "common sense" conclusion, and then proceeds to construct an argument for it that is so meandering and inscrutable (with a touch of "reinterpretation"), that all the lawyers just throw their arms in the air and exclaim "Well, there it is! I guess this is the new normal!"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:14PM (12 children)
Actually, the decision is both rather easy to understand and has profound positive implications. There are two very important points here: patent right expiration at first sale, and the invalidation of 'shrink wrap' licenses.
Patent rights now expire at first sale. While not covered in this case, at present software in the USA is accorded full patent rights. Ergo, software patent rights now expire at first sale. This has tremendous positive implications for the right to repair movement.
Also, this is the first time to my knowledge a shrinkwrap EULA has hit the SCOTUS. They invalidated it near-universally (Ginsberg dissented on this point). This means the majority of shrinkwrap licenses are likely unenforceable and invalid.
As far as I can see, this is massively beneficial precedent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:38PM
Thanks for corroborating exactly my point.
Your whole reply can be summed as "Well, this is the way it is now."
(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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:31PM
First, only copyright is automatically conferred on anything. Patents are only given to those who apply for them after an extensive review. Second, software patents are very rarely issued after the Supreme Court's decision in Alice v. CLS Bank, and very few software patents issued before that decision are likely to survive a challenge based on the Alice ruling.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:12AM
And what will it mean for MS's EULA that basically says "you don't own this software, you're just renting it" .
Will it become "you don't own this printer, you are renting it. If you do something we don't like, we will fine you",?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 31 2017, @03:32AM (3 children)
Unfortunately, not everything is nice and dandy - the software is still covered by the copyright laws.
As such, in the "right to repair" cases, still no modifications of the original firmware are allowed under this precedent, you'll need to wipe clean it clean (which I think the present case now allows) and replace it with your own.
BTW, the manufacturers aren't forced to give you a way to replace the firmware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 31 2017, @04:26AM (2 children)
I'm not 100% certain, but I believe copyright can't stop you from modifying software you have purchased - it only stops you from distributing such derived works.
And obvious solution if you wish to distribute a modification, is to distribute patches against the official version - just as was done for so long with Minix before Linux came along and ate it's lunch by employing a more liberal license.
>BTW, the manufacturers aren't forced to give you a way to replace the firmware.
Nope, but countless tinkerers will work out ways to do so, and my guess is that this will makes it far more difficult to stop them.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 31 2017, @05:55AM
Good point.
Also, I don't see what's the inter-relations between this court decision and DCMA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Wednesday May 31 2017, @03:36PM
Copyright restricts the creation of derivative works, which includes modifying software you have purchased.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:46PM
Even if true, that won't help much. The current trend is Software as a Service. With SaaS, you just get an account at the company's servers. The companies have even more control than with copyright and patent law combined, without even needing much help from the law. And on top of that they also get your data.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:21PM
We are so lucky to have such a legal scholar as yourself posting on SN. For the next opening on SCOTUS I nominate Anonymous Coward.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:58PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:17AM
Patent exhaustion has itself become exhausted in the intervening years.
Not ONLY by people like Lexmark. But also by prior court ruling.
So yes it is new. Its a major bitchslap to a lot of courts.
You would have thought that Quanta Computer, Inc. v. L.G. Electronics,Inc (2008) would have made Patent Exhaustion as settled law in the modern era.
But such was not the case, as exhibited by this case reaching the SC, as well as a few others in other courts chipping away at patent exhaustion. This has been going back and forth for decades, and this is just one more example of how Patent Exhaustion is being upheld on a wider and wider field of battle.
(Patent exhaustion is not enshrined in law. It is a court-decision doctrine that the courts are slowly coming to grips with - often out of practical reasoning more than actual basis in statute - as this states "clog the channels of commerce").
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:24PM
Fuck you! I do what I want!
(Score: 2) by Celestial on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:36PM (18 children)
Now I suppose the price of new printers themselves will go up accordingly.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:39PM
As well it should be.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:42PM (12 children)
I imagine so. If there are competing printer manufacturers, this should, in theory, force the price of printers down to the point where everyone can still make a profit.
Similarly ink cartridge prices will fall to where everyone can still make a profit.
Wouldn't you rather buy a (lets suppose) $200 printer once, and then inexpensive ink so that you could afford to print as much as you like?
How many ink cartridges, at today's inflated prices, does it take to recoup the cost of manufacturing the printer?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:50PM (5 children)
> Wouldn't you rather buy a (lets suppose) $200 printer once, and then inexpensive ink so that you could afford to print as much as you like?
Thing is, you can already do that. The $200 printers never went away, you can still buy them, and they will happily take third party/refilled ink all day long.
I bought an Epson 1500W a while ago for around that price, and not only can you load it with any ink you want, you can get CISS system [wikipedia.org] for a bit extra, and then you can just buy bottles of ink cheaply.
I did the setup as I started printing a lot recently (primarily photos), so depends on your needs and how much you print. The option never went away, but a lot of cheaper printers came about to be sold as loss leaders.
I do find it odd however that you need a court to grant a person the "right" to refill a bottle they own with a liquid they own as well, about a surreal as being told I can't refill my coffee makers water tank with my own water unless the supreme court rules on it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:03PM
The day they try this, look to the news for a mass shooting at the Newell Brands HQ in Hoboken, New Jersey. That will be my fifteen minutes of fame.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:23PM (2 children)
"The $200 printers never went away,"
You're both right, and wrong. For you, who knows about printers, there were always options. But, you'll admit that printers, the sales, service, and maintenance of printers, have gotten just a bit complicated. The average consumer goes into Walmart, in need of a printer. Walmart doesn't have a lot of options, and most of those options are the dirt cheap options. So, Sally Q. Consumer compares the features of what is available, and opts for Brand X, which costs her about 50 bucks. She uses up all the ink supplied with the thing, goes back to Walmart, and finds that the ink costs 75 or 100 bucks. If Sally is lucky, she complains to the right person, who informs her that she can get a much better quality printer for 200, and refill it every year for about 20 dollars. If Sally is less lucky, she either pays for the overpriced ink, or she just throws away the printer, and buys a new one with it's supply of ink.
I'm about halfway between you and Sally. I really don't understand WHAT makes one printer better quality than another. But, I do know who to ask.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 31 2017, @03:48AM (1 child)
The average consumer is an idiot. But let's go with your scenario for a second.
And Sally rightly feels it is ridiculous that a bottle of ink costs $75. So, if Sally has just a tiny bit of sense, she might do a quick internet search for printer reviews, and realize that this cartridge thing is a scam for most printers. And then when she shops for her next printer, she can just look up a price for a cartridge online BEFORE she buys a printer.
I don't think it requires much specialized knowledge about printers to figure this out. Granted, many consumers get fooled by this the first time they buy a printer.
Also, Walmart doesn't just offer a line of rip-off cheap inkjet printers. A quick search shows me they offer a lot of laser [walmart.com] models, for example (many not that pricey), and if you happen to click on one, it likely will show you the toner cartridge and price among its suggested items list.
So yeah, if Sally is 70 years old and doesn't understand how to do an internet search or read reviews online, I can understand how she might not be able to figure out that it's possible to buy a printer with a cheaper refill. Do such people exist? Yes. But it's not as hard as a chance encounter with "complaining to the right person" anymore.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday May 31 2017, @05:41AM
Or get the cheap printer on clearance for $20 or $30 with ink in it every time it runs dry. Comes with a free scanner too.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday May 31 2017, @05:37AM
They've already tried coffee makers that will only take a certain brand of coffee.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:50PM (2 children)
The bigger question in my mind, why do people by inkjets when they can have laser?
(Score: 4, Informative) by ese002 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:17PM (1 child)
Because laser printers cost more and have lousy color definition?
If you print often and mostly text or geometric shapes, there is a strong case for laser printers. If you print rarely, with photos being a large chunk, inkjets are a better choice.
Actually, for those who print rarely, this decision is a bum deal. Printers will become more expensive, a cost that can not be avoided. In return, ink will be cheaper, except that you are not printing often, you aren't spending much on ink anyway.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:33AM
That theory has already been dis-proved.
There is third party ink and toner for just about every printer on the market. And printers are still dirt cheap. Their prices are not going up, (still going down actually) because the price of ink/toner has been arbitrarily forced down by in-house refills or commercial refill services. Every Office Supply store has a house brand of ink cartridges, and way back in the 90s we were already having the local guy come to the office and "drill and fill" toner cartridges.
HP and friends are still making money on printers. And they are still making money on toner and Ink. Refill doesn't work forever. Printers don't last forever. The cheap printer as Loss Leader is largely an urban myth. They really can churned out a laser printer for under 200 bucks at a profit.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday May 31 2017, @01:01AM (2 children)
A hell of a lot of people (including me) don't have enough discretionary income to spend much over $100 (if even that) on a printer these days — and finding out which models are worthwhile that allow third-party cartridges can require more time & energy than many people can (or wish to) dedicate to the task.
(Score: 3, Informative) by schad on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:57AM
If you print something only once every few years, use a service like FedEx Office or borrow somebody's printer. For many years this is what I did, since I only needed a printer (and scanner and fax machine) to fill out paperwork for HR when I changed jobs.
If you print frequently, surf Craigslist for used office lasers. You can find one for under $50. I was going to go this route, but then work offered to buy me a printer for my home office so I did that instead.
For photo printing, use a service. It costs around a quarter per print. I doubt you can beat that price no matter how "cheap" ink gets.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 31 2017, @03:56AM
Look up your printer on some other online store that sells your printer and has reviews and links to "recommended items" that will often include compatible cartridges. You can then generally click on the 3rd party cartridge and discover whether people reviewing it says it actually works. It literally might take a couple minutes per printer option you're considering.
If your budget is so constrained that a $100 printer is barely affordable, investing 10-20 minutes in looking up easily findable info online before making a purchase is probably a good time investment, considering how much money it will likely save you down the road.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:05PM (3 children)
Maybe, although if I had to guess the first order of business for the printer manufacturers will be redoubling their efforts to detect third-party and refilled cartridges and make the printer not function if they are discovered.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:33PM (1 child)
And there is a *huge* hacker community to take up the challenge. And if the effort to circumvent this shit has to be done. Then any bonus discoveries will be taken advantage of fully.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:54PM
Just stop using printers...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:44AM
How well did that work for Kurig? Now we'll give printer manufacturers a teeeeeeeeeny bit more credit than Kurig and say that I doubt their DRM would be as easy to defeat as clipping the top off a legit cartridge and taping it to the sensor but the end result will be the same. No one will want buy that printer when the one next to it wouldn't have that limitation.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:23PM (5 children)
My printer was in a storage locker for quite a long time, and would no longer print anything at all.
I paid about ninety bucks for a complete set of ink. Now it mostly prints but a few jets on black don't work. It's kinda sorta OK for me but I want my essays to look nice when I give them to friends - presentation is everything.
I have a close friend who wants to read my essays. She doesn't have a computer.
Some people choose not to.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:42PM (4 children)
My last inkjet had that problem: I only used it a few times a year and the ink would dry out.
Then I dug out my father's dot matrix printer. It took a little trial an error to get the margins right in Linux but even after 10 years of storage it still printed, problem solved.
As much as I want you to go out and enjoy the glory that is dot matrix, I've now switched to laser for the same reason and it is honestly the correct choice. On sale monocrome laser printers are quite affordable, and third party toner is not terribly expensive at the rate I print.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:45PM (1 child)
I have a laser printer that I used for years with only the toner that it came with.
Unfortunately it's in storage and cannot be quickly retrieved. Quite likely that particular toner cartridge is no longer manufactured.
Thanks for reminding me, I'll start shopping around.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by compro01 on Wednesday May 31 2017, @04:07AM
I wouldn't bet on that. Cartridges for the HP Laserjet III (released in 1990) are still obtainable. Unless it's a seriously obscure manufacturer, odds are someone still makes or refills cartridges for the thing.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:37AM
I can buy a brand-new laser printer for less than what that ink cost me.
I have a good contract now, maybe I'll get a color laser. I'm in no hurry so I can shop intelligently.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday May 31 2017, @05:46AM
Hmm, I wonder if I could get ink for the Xerox Memory Writer. Used to use that as a printer for the IBM PC.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:24PM (1 child)
Now that "First Sale" for ink is enshrined in law, how about the same for software?
1. Buy new laptop.
2. Install favorite distro.
3. Sell Windoze
4. Profit ...
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:54PM
I think I see a flaw in your plan.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:25PM (2 children)
> 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.
That's gonna get quoted in a lot of future DRM cases ...
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:36PM (1 child)
Could you explore on that? Do you mean that heavy-handed approaches will be discouraged because they are proven to not work?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:28AM
* 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*
The RIAA/etc heavy-handed approach to discourage 'pirates' from downloading torrents only emboldened........
MS's heavy-handed approach to discouraging people from buying a computer with Linux preinstalled and not paying the MS tax.......
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:31PM (2 children)
Lexmark, we have observed you lost the soap on the floor. Prepare for incoming :P
My telepathic senses register a feature with plenty of ink, cheap ink..
Justices:
(0) John Roberts
(1) Anthony Kennedy
(2) Clarence Thomas
(3) Ruth Bader Ginsburg
(4) Stephen Breyer
(5) Samuel Alito
(6) Sonia Sotomayor
(7) Elena Kagan
(8) Neil Gorsuch
So 8 justices participated and out of these 6 back the opinion ie 75%. That should make the decision quite solid. At least until this "mishap" is fixed by appropriate lobby bribery result in a new law. Maybe it will be called "Device suppliers rights protection" or more correctly "Printer manufacturers right to screw people in general".
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:05PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 31 2017, @04:00AM
The summary isn't wrong; GP just misread it. The standard phrasing for SCOTUS decisions is "opinion authored by X, joined by Y and Z" or whatever. This opinion was authored by Roberts and was joined by 6 (other) justices, hence 7-1. You're right that Ginsberg only dissented in part.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:39PM (16 children)
So does this mean a drug company can not use patents to prevent a drug sold cheaper elsewhere from being imported into the US?
They still have their little buddies at the FDA, but maybe we could get a law to permit importing already FDA approved medicines from countries that have better health stats than ours.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:42PM (2 children)
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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:48PM
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
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.)
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:54PM (12 children)
The FDA has the USA balls in a death-grip, which is why my wife's recent prescription had an alleged retail price of $4000. (I know there are plenty of worse examples.) Meanwhile Tylenol costs less than $10 a bottle.
FDA should have no more power than granting an "FDA seal of approval" sticker on any product that desires one. They can still go through their 10 years of testing and everything else if they want.
You the buyer can choose product A with the sticker, or product B without it.
Yeah I know some of you lay awake at night quaking at the thought somebody might package up poison and sell it as platinum. OK so just don't buy stuff without the lovely FDA sticker, mmmkay?
(Score: 5, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:01AM (11 children)
Companies probably wouldn't do that on purpose. However, in an industry without an enforced culture of safety, bad things can happen:
In the 1930s, Sulfanilamide was a well-known, safe antibiotic. S.E. Massengill saw a demand for a liquid preparation instead of the normal powdered one, since children like liquid medication better and often need antibiotics, and the company ordered its chemist to find a substance it would dissolve in. He found it dissolved really well in ANTIFREEZE! So he added some raspberry flavoring -- you know, children like flavor -- and BOOM, it was on the market! Tasty, effective raspberry medicine for children! YAY FOR RAPID FREE MARKET INNOVATION!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_sulfanilamide [wikipedia.org]
Guess Watkins didn't realize how awesome the free market is. Those 100+ children should have just done better research before taking the medicine. And the S.E. Massengill brand lost a ton of value, so their agonizingly painful deaths from kidney failure weren't in vain. Caveat emptor. Free market rulez.
This incident is literally why we have the FDA.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:26AM (9 children)
Calm down. I'm not machine-gunning babies. I'm suggesting people could have a choice. If you fear the above scenario playing out again, choose the product with the FDA approved sticker. What's so hard about that?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday May 31 2017, @01:10AM
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.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday May 31 2017, @01:13AM
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?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:40AM (6 children)
You're a single father who has a sick kid and you rush to the store. You do not earn a lot of money, and you want to get home to your kid.
You look, and side by side the two drugs look the same, but one is cheaper, so you grab it (not even stopping to look for an FDA sticker).
You rush home in order to KILL YOUR CHILD!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday May 31 2017, @04:29PM (5 children)
In your scenario the person checked the price. Why? Because he cared about it. But he didn't check for the FDA sticker. WHY???
Good god people, you'd think our watchful guardian angels from the government are the only thing saving us minute by minute from grisly death because they are so smart and we are so helpless we can't even look for a sticker.
If you want your vitamin-C to be certified by someone, look for a certification. From FDA, if that's who you trust. From someone else, if you trust them more. Choice.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 31 2017, @08:59PM (3 children)
You've never lost your keys, or the remote or your glasses?
People under stress don't think properly: your kid is sick, you grab something (it may not even BE the cheapest). Should there REALLY be something on the market that could kill a kid?
Is that who you are???
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday May 31 2017, @09:24PM (2 children)
No, cars should not be on the market because they might kill kids.
Idiot.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 31 2017, @09:57PM (1 child)
Wait! That's your come back? Cars are the same as poison marketed as safe?
Good one!
Idiot.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday May 31 2017, @10:22PM
Don't take it personally, and don't descend to his level. The point of arguing with people like him isn't to change his mind -- I mean, sometimes it is, but usually people like him are too far gone to help. The point is to demonstrate to less blinkered people that his philosophy and reasoning have no merit. Name calling doesn't help us do that.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday May 31 2017, @10:17PM
We had stickers in 1937. People trusted the S.E. Massengill brand. They bought the Elixir Sulfanilamide from a brand they trusted, and they and their children died.
Either stickers don't work for drug safety, or you're okay with people who trust the wrong stickers -- and their children, upon whom you can impute no negligence -- dying from preventable causes. Which is it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:30AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by jelizondo on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:26PM (1 child)
I just read the entire decision and I would like to clarify a couple of points for soylentils who are celebrating the wrong event. (And yes, I happen to be a lawyer.)
From the decision:
When Lexmark wanted to stop other people from refilling their cartridges it had two ways to go about it: a) sue the individual consumer who re-sold the cartridges to a third party or b) try to sue for “patent infringement” those refilling and reselling said cartridges.
It went with b) for obvious reasons: identifying and suing (in a civil court) thousands of people would be expensive and give it a lot of bad PR. So it tried to tell the courts that “first sale doctrine” had not exhausted its patent rights and the Federal Circuit court agreed with them, but that has been reversed by the Supreme Court but only with regard to Patent law. It is still be possible for Lexmark (or anyone else) to bring a civil suit against any party even if it involves a “shrink-wrap license”.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:44PM
I think you may be batting .500 which is ok.
First sale is all about the limits to your IP rights, so to say it only helps with patent infringement issues is like saying it only helps where it is supposed to.
The EULA stuff needs limits as well, but sadly, this ruling does not seem to be it.
I agree that the shrink wrap and contract stuff seems unaffected by this ruling. (Or more likely, it will get much worse.)
The practical limit to what Lexmark can do in this direction is the marketing choice of do they really want to sue their customers, and the practicality of suing each one at a time.
The court clearly said the contract stuff is still an open option, but the contract was with the original cartridge purchaser who agreed to buy a cheaper product and not put it in the recycle stream and did anyway.
This puts the recycler in the clear.
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:50AM (1 child)
What was Impression Products doing that got then sued? I see all kinds of info about patents and so and so on, but no info on what Impression Products was actually doing to bring on the lawsuit in the first place.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday May 31 2017, @01:17AM
From this summary [wtvbam.com]:
(Score: 4, Insightful) by archfeld on Wednesday May 31 2017, @01:40AM (1 child)
Now we'll see a printer with a permanent ink cartridge holding enough ink for say 5000 pages that, once empty fails and renders the entire printer unusable ?
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Touché) by jummama on Wednesday May 31 2017, @04:07PM
That, along with telemetry in the driver tied into a mandatory re-ordering subscription to send you a new printer when your ink is 6 months old, or has run out of yellow, which ever comes first.
(Score: 3, Touché) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Wednesday May 31 2017, @03:44AM
but hey, you can resell your toner cartridges. Nifty.
https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling