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 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.