Dynaverse.net
Off Topic => Engineering => Topic started by: Nemesis on September 04, 2005, 04:34:37 pm
-
The Shrinkwrapification of Patented Goods (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003951.php)
Now Lexmark (which already unsuccessfully tried to use the DMCA to wipe out the refills market) has turned to patent law to prop up its effort to keep its customers in bondage. According to Lexmark, the "single use only" label on the boxes of their "Prebate" printer cartridges creates an enforceable contract between Lexmark and consumers. By opening the box, you're agreed to the contract.
Sound familiar? It's a variant on the "shrinkwrap license" that used to appear plastered on software. Lexmark is bringing this practice to the world of patented goods. If you step outside the bounds of the "contract" (by giving your spent cartridge to a remanufacturer), you're suddenly a patent infringer. More importantly, Lexmark can sue cartridge remanufacturers for "inducing" patent infringement by making and selling refills.
ACRA, an association of cartridge remanufacturers, sued Lexmark to block this anti-consumer use of patent law. EFF filed an amicus brief on their behalf before the Ninth Circuit. Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit this week ruled in favor of Lexmark, agreeing that the "single use only" restriction contained in the "box-wrap license" on the package could create an enforceable contract between Lexmark and its customers, and that a violation of the contract could be a patent infringement.
Now put that on a car. "All repairs by authorized GM personnel only". "Use only Ford approved gasoline".
-
Pretty sure Honda has...
Semi-Off Topic Rant:
But then the kids these days don't care, as long as its loud! ::)
When will noise bylaws ever be enforced with respect to these to these so called "performance" mufflers and downright silly sub-woofers? Not to mention the doughheads that feel obliged to remove the baffle from their Harley's muffler that was noise bylaw kosher when it left the factory... I would love to see it happen someday, maybe someday they'll offend the right police chief...
-
Pretty ironic, considering Lexmark is now owned by a Chinese company. Maybe we just enforce their patents like they enforce ours...
-
Hmm, well, Lexmark always sold pretty terrible printers anyways.
-
Ugh, I hate Lexmark.
-
Lexmark printers--stare at them too hard and they break!
BTW, is this contract spelled out clearly on the exteriro of all boxes of Lexmark inks/toners? Does it specify the penalties to the user who break the contract? Does it offer a means for refund if users choose not to enter the contract?
-
Lexmark printers--stare at them too hard and they break!
BTW, is this contract spelled out clearly on the exteriro of all boxes of Lexmark inks/toners? Does it specify the penalties to the user who break the contract? Does it offer a means for refund if users choose not to enter the contract?
Stare at them? Heck, point a piece of paper in their general direction and the printer breaks.
-
The Shrinkwrapification of Patented Goods ([url]http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003951.php[/url])
Now Lexmark (which already unsuccessfully tried to use the DMCA to wipe out the refills market) has turned to patent law to prop up its effort to keep its customers in bondage. According to Lexmark, the "single use only" label on the boxes of their "Prebate" printer cartridges creates an enforceable contract between Lexmark and consumers. By opening the box, you're agreed to the contract.
Sound familiar? It's a variant on the "shrinkwrap license" that used to appear plastered on software. Lexmark is bringing this practice to the world of patented goods. If you step outside the bounds of the "contract" (by giving your spent cartridge to a remanufacturer), you're suddenly a patent infringer. More importantly, Lexmark can sue cartridge remanufacturers for "inducing" patent infringement by making and selling refills.
ACRA, an association of cartridge remanufacturers, sued Lexmark to block this anti-consumer use of patent law. EFF filed an amicus brief on their behalf before the Ninth Circuit. Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit this week ruled in favor of Lexmark, agreeing that the "single use only" restriction contained in the "box-wrap license" on the package could create an enforceable contract between Lexmark and its customers, and that a violation of the contract could be a patent infringement.
Now put that on a car. "All repairs by authorized GM personnel only". "Use only Ford approved gasoline".
Unfortunately this piece of prophecy is coming true. John Deere for one is using it on their farm equipment and lobbying state legislatures into making it fully legal. :'(
-
supreme court ruling has major effect on this...
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/30/supreme-court-lexmark-sales-exhausted-patent-rights/id=83824/ (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/30/supreme-court-lexmark-sales-exhausted-patent-rights/id=83824/)