If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Printer cartridges - licensing restrictions
From Ed Foster's GripeLog - The sneakwrapping of American law took another fateful step last week with a decision rendered by the U.S. District Court in the case of Lexmark versus the Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association (ACRA). The court's ruling - dismissing ACRA's charges of deceptive practices against Lexmark - implies that a manufacturer can deprive mass-market consumers of their rights just by slapping a license agreement on its product. The case revolves around what Lexmark used to call its "Prebate" program for laser printer toner cartridges. Prebate cartridges come with a shrinkwrap license agreement saying "opening this package confirms your acceptance of" a restriction that the cartridge can be used only once and then should be returned to Lexmark. Lexmark said it wanted the empty cartridges for remanufacturing or recycling purposes, but no one can doubt the company's primary motive was to keep the cartridges out of the hands of re- manufacturers. ACRA argued the Prebate program was deceptive because it misled consumers into thinking they did not have the right to dispose of the cartridges as they chose. ACRA assumed the court would conclude Lexmark customers have that right due to what is called the "doctrine of exhaustion." Roughly the patent law equivalent of the first sale doctrine in copyright law, the doctrine of exhaustion says the patent holder's rights cease - are "exhausted" - once the product is actually sold. Buyers have an implied license to use the patented product as they see fit, including reselling it or fixing it. As the judge put it in her ruling, the doctrine of exhaustion "includes the authority to repair a patented device (e.g. refill an empty printer cartridge.)" But ACRA assumed wrong in thinking the court would uphold the doctrine of exhaustion in this case. That doctrine only applies in unconditional sales, the judge said. Conditional sales in which one negotiates a better price in return for agreeing to certain restrictions are not uncommon in business-to-business transactions. Most laser printer customers are businesses, the court noted, and Lexmark's license was visible on the outside of the product "so the Lexmark purchaser is on notice that Lexmark has imposed a single- use condition on the cartridge." The court also bought Lexmark's description of its Prebate price as a $30 discount or upfront rebate off the "regular" price of its theoretically available non-Prebate cartridge. ACRA had argued that the Prebate price was the actual regular price, and $30 more for a cartridge without the usage restriction was actually a surcharge. But the judge concluded that the Prebate offer constituted a special price that reflects an exchange for the single- use condition. "Based on these circumstances, the court concludes that Lexmark has not exhausted its rights," the ruling read. "The Prebate is a conditional sale and the single-use condition is enforceable. Because of its patents, Lexmark has the right to impose conditions on the sale of its patented product. It may restrict a purchaser's ability to repair it, which is what in essence the single-use condition does." In other words, a federal judge is saying that a patent holder can impose usage restrictions on its customers just by having some legalese on the package. And the usage restrictions are enforceable even when they are clearly intended to limit competition. Indeed, giving Lexmark the right to prevent its cartridges from being acquired by the remanufacturers makes it all the more likely Lexmark printer customers will have no other options when they need a toner cartridge. Of course, Lexmark customers did have another option - they could have purchased a different brand of printer to begin with. As we've seen, Lexmark isn't the only printer company trying to lock customers into using their consumables, but none of the others have gone so far as to employ UCITA-style legal tricks to do it. Either we make it clear we will have nothing to do with companies that deprive us of our rights this way, or we can bet that very soon all companies will do the same. http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/...0/9/9193/72265 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:37:11 -0700, Steve wrote:
From Ed Foster's GripeLog - The sneakwrapping of American law took another fateful step last week with a decision rendered by the U.S. District Court in the case of Lexmark versus the Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association (ACRA). snipped http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/...0/9/9193/72265 Spread the word far and wide. Friends don't let friends buy Lexmark products. Let's make their sales fall to ZERO and teach them what happens when they screw their customers. I don't own a Lexmark and by God I never will. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:37:11 -0700, Steve wrote:
From Ed Foster's GripeLog - The sneakwrapping of American law took another fateful step last week with a decision rendered by the U.S. District Court in the case of Lexmark versus the Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association (ACRA). snipped http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/...0/9/9193/72265 Spread the word far and wide. Friends don't let friends buy Lexmark products. Let's make their sales fall to ZERO and teach them what happens when they screw their customers. I don't own a Lexmark and by God I never will. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:37:11 -0700, Steve wrote: From Ed Foster's GripeLog - The sneakwrapping of American law took another fateful step last week with a decision rendered by the U.S. District Court in the case of Lexmark versus the Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association (ACRA). snipped http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/...0/9/9193/72265 Spread the word far and wide. Friends don't let friends buy Lexmark products. Let's make their sales fall to ZERO and teach them what happens when they screw their customers. I don't own a Lexmark and by God I never will. Lexmark does not appear on my list of reputable companies any more. If you would like to express yourself to Lexmark on this issue here is the corporate e-mail address. John |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article in
misc.consumers, Steve wrote: The sneakwrapping of American law took another fateful step last week Was it really necessary to post this twice? (That's a rhetorical question.) Come to that, was it necessary to post it _once_? Why not write a one- or two-sentence summary and then give the URL for those who want more? -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely reduces the number of useful answers you get. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article in
misc.consumers, Steve wrote: The sneakwrapping of American law took another fateful step last week Was it really necessary to post this twice? (That's a rhetorical question.) Come to that, was it necessary to post it _once_? Why not write a one- or two-sentence summary and then give the URL for those who want more? -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely reduces the number of useful answers you get. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Stan Brown wrote:
The sneakwrapping of American law took another fateful step last week Was it really necessary to post this twice? (That's a rhetorical question.) Sorry, didn't realize it had been posted twice. Come to that, was it necessary to post it _once_? Why not write a one- or two-sentence summary and then give the URL for those who want more? Because it facilitates discussion. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Stan Brown wrote:
The sneakwrapping of American law took another fateful step last week Was it really necessary to post this twice? (That's a rhetorical question.) Sorry, didn't realize it had been posted twice. Come to that, was it necessary to post it _once_? Why not write a one- or two-sentence summary and then give the URL for those who want more? Because it facilitates discussion. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Marcio Watanabe wrote:
Because it facilitates discussion. What discussion?! You copied and pasted someone else's report without one single sentence of your own. Yes, so? If others want to discuss it, it's helpful to include the text. And even if there's no discussion, what's your complaint, exactly? Is it off topic? Not possibly useful to anyone here? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Printer Cartridges for Colour Printer 720 | Tim JN | Dell Computers | 12 | January 25th 05 01:56 AM |
pc problems after g card upgrade + sp2 | ben reed | Homebuilt PC's | 9 | November 30th 04 01:04 AM |
New (official Epson) inkjet cartridges cost the same as a new printer. | ToolPackinMama | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | August 12th 04 10:53 PM |
Printer cartridges? | Joey | Printers | 1 | September 6th 03 01:07 PM |
Printer cartridges | Zoab | Printers | 14 | July 9th 03 09:34 PM |