RSS
The Ninth Circuit has created box-wrap patent licenses. Now the label on the box that says "single use only" is given force of law, and if you refill the cartridge you are liable for patent infringement. This from Lexmark, the company that already tried and failed to control the printer cartridge after-market using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)...Will patent owners exploit this decision as an opportunity to impose over-reaching restrictions on formerly permitted post-sale uses, repairs, modifications, and resale? Will consumers soon confront “single use only, not for resale” notices on more and more products? Will innovators stumble over labels announcing “modifications prohibited”? Link.
Single use only, modifications prohibited
The Ninth Circuit has created box-wrap patent licenses. Now the label on the box that says "single use only" is given force of law, and if you refill the cartridge you are liable for patent infringement. This from Lexmark, the company that already tried and failed to control the printer cartridge after-market using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)...Will patent owners exploit this decision as an opportunity to impose over-reaching restrictions on formerly permitted post-sale uses, repairs, modifications, and resale? Will consumers soon confront “single use only, not for resale” notices on more and more products? Will innovators stumble over labels announcing “modifications prohibited”? Link.
Posted by Phillip Torrone |
Sep 4, 2005 01:13 PM
Announcements |
Permalink
| Comments (3)
| Email This |
| Digg this!
Recent Entries
- Simple no-sew toolbelt
- Web cam view of a NASA clean room
- Seasonal Flickr color cycle
- Building a spot welder from a battery charger
- Saw blade that cuts and sands
- How-To: Document folders from keyboard circuit sheets
- Spring-cleaning sale in the Maker Shed
- Play Clothtylophone combines best features of pillow, synthesizer
- Cool little 4-in-1 pocket tool
- Blue barrel Frisbee golf target
Comments
Oldest comments listed first.
Leave a comment
Subscribe to MAKE Magazine!
Subscribe today, save 42% and get web access to MAKE free. MAKE Digital Edition is available only to subscribers.
$34.95 / 1 year
(4 Quarterly Issues)
Looks like I will not buy a Lexmark.
Lexmark wants "the power to fix prices or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use or preserve that power."
In short a Monopoly. I for one think that concentrations of resources (I can only a printer cartridge from one source) are injurious to the public and individuals because they minimize, if not obliterate, marketplace competition, and yield undesirable price controls (Lexmark can set any price because no one else can.)
P.S.Thare was a time when you could only rent a computer from IBM too.
Reply to this comment
Well, Lexmark is an IBM subsidiary and obviously look back to those good old days.
Personally I don't use refills because they're too messy and often use poor quality ink (I've seen the results, don't want to loose my printer).
But I'd guess some higher court will reverse this decision from the 9th Circus court, like most of their more notorious decisions are eventually overturned.
Reply to this comment
I just started a Wikipedia article on this ruling: right now it has a decent overview of the issues involved.
Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.".
This ruling is of concern to me personally, because it could open the door to shrink-wrap licensing of instructional videos, making it harder for consumers to get access to the kinds of things we rent out at Technical Video Rental.
Reply to this comment