https://hothardware.com/news/us-supreme-court-protects-consumers-right-to-refill-ink-cartridges

US Supreme Court Protects Consumers' Right To Refill Ink Cartridges In Precedent-Setting Lexmark vs Impression Case

While other toner remanufacturing companies settled out of court under the threat of legal action from Lexmark, Impression Products decided to take a stand and ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices handed the small company a landslide victory. According to Bloomberg, the justices ruled in favor of Impression Products 8-0 or 7-1, depending on certain aspects of the case. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented partially, saying that patent rights should not be exhausted for products sold overseas.



"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.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf

When a patentee sells an item, that product “is no longer within the limits of the [patent] monopoly” and instead becomes the “private, individual property” of the purchaser.

When you buy something, you own it.

 

That could end up being a pretty big deal. Interesting.

 

That could end up being a pretty big deal. Interesting.

It brings some common sense to the patent nightmare in America. It's like defacto restricting you from refilling the gas tank on the new car you own with gas from the neighborhood station and forcing you to only use the dealer gas station because X car company has a patent on the ECU software. Legal contracts can still be enforced but contracts are usually restricted to terms all parties agree to.

The Notorious RBG was back to her old tricks.

 

When you buy something, you own it.

As it should be.

Once something is mine and the warranty is off, or if I just don't care about the warranty, I should have every legal right to disassemble, modify, improve, repurpose or abuse it in anyway I want.

Hopefully this settlement will bring printer ink prices down to rational non extortionist prices too!

 

As it should be.

Once something is mine and the warranty is off, or if I just don't care about the warranty, I should have every legal right to disassemble, modify, improve, repurpose or abuse it in anyway I want.

Hopefully this settlement will bring printer ink prices down to rational non extortionist prices too!

It could be better than just ink prices. Patented drugs could be paid for and shipped from 'overseas' for a lower price and legally resold in the USA if it's exactly the same the US drug. Now you might have to convince the FDA drug mafia this is a good thing.

 

It could be better than just ink prices. Patented drugs could be paid for and shipped from 'overseas' for a lower price and legally resold in the USA if it's exactly the same the US drug. Now you might have to convince the FDA drug mafia this is a good thing.

yes, my first thought was immediately in regard to medical devices

 

It could be better than just ink prices. Patented drugs could be paid for and shipped from 'overseas' for a lower price and legally resold in the USA if it's exactly the same the US drug. Now you might have to convince the FDA drug mafia this is a good thing.

I'm not sure this case would apply. For one, you're not allowed to sell your personal prescription drugs to someone else. Secondly, the exact analogy would be selling your empty prescription bottles to a third party so they could refill it with imitation pills and resell it.

Don't get me wrong: I think it is a good ruling as far as it goes (and I have patents) . And I think FDA regulations have probably killed at least as many people as they have saved. But the two are separate issues, IMHO.

 

I'm not sure this case would apply. For one, you're not allowed to sell your personal prescription drugs to someone else. Secondly, the exact analogy would be selling your empty prescription bottles to a third party so they could refill it with imitation pills and resell it.

Don't get me wrong: I think it is a good ruling as far as it goes (and I have patents) . And I think FDA regulations have probably killed at least as many people as they have saved. But the two are separate issues, IMHO.

I'm talking about a second party pharmaceutical wholesaler that supplies drugs to an authorized pharmacy chain like inside a Walmart or Costco. Part of the problem is US companies subsidizing foreign market share with high US prices for the exact same drug or device.

 

I'm talking about a second party pharmaceutical wholesaler that supplies a drugs to an authorized pharmacy chain like inside a Walmart.

That would be interesting to see what the big pharmaceutical companies do if overseas produced drugs that sell for tiny fraction of what they want legally hit the market. $10 epipens in every gas station pharmaceutical issle right next to the out of date butt rash creams?

 

That would be interesting to see what the big pharmaceutical companies do if overseas produced drugs that sell for tiny fraction of what they want legally hit the market. $10 epipens in every gas station pharmaceutical issle right next to the out of date butt rash creams?

I don't expect them to go broke or to allow illegal products but using patent law to control the legit after first sale market fly's in the face of common law and sense. That's why the Supremes' ruled 8-0 and 7-1.

http://columbialawreview.org/conten...-the-case-of-international-patent-exhaustion/

An initial indication of who wins and who loses under a U.S. rule of international patent exhaustion is apparent from the lineup of amici on each side of the Lexmarkdispute. Among private parties, those opposing exhaustion generally profit from sales of patented products and include the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), and a coalition of manufacturers of imaging supplies (including Canon, Hewlett-Packard, Samsung, and Xerox).13 Brief of Biotechnology Industry Organization and CropLife International as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant,Lexmark, No. 2014-1617 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2015), 2015 WL 5076197; Brief of Imaging Supplies Coalition as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant at 1, Lexmark, No. 2014-1617 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 18, 2015), 2015 WL 5076190, at *9 (listing members); Brief of Intellectual Property Owners Association on Hearing En Banc as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant Lexmark, Lexmark, No. 2014-1617 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2015), 2015 WL 5076192; Brief of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff and Cross-Appellant Lexmark International, Inc., Lexmark, No. 2014-1617 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2015), 2015 WL 5076195.The pro-exhaustion parties, who tend to depend on using others’ patents, include many technology companies (such as Amazon, eBay, Dell, Facebook, Google, Intel, and Samsung14 Bizarrely, Samsung is on two briefs supporting Impression and one supporting Lexmark. See supra note 13, infra note 15 and accompanying text.), Costco (which buys goods abroad for U.S. resale), remanufacturing firms, and consumer groups (including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge).15 Brief of Computer & Communications Industry Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant Impression Products, Lexmark, No. 2014-1617 (Fed. Cir. June 19, 2015); Brief for Costco Wholesale Corporation and Retail Litigation Center, Inc. as Amici Curiae Supporting Defendant-Appellant,Lexmark, No. 2014-1617 (Fed. Cir. June 19, 2015); Brief of LG Electronics, Inc. et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant, Lexmark, No. 2014-1617 (Fed. Cir. June 19, 2015) [hereinafter Brief of LG Electronics] (filed for companies including Google, Intel, and Samsung); Brief of Public Knowledge et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant Impression Products, Lexmark, No. 2014-1617 (Fed. Cir. June 19, 2015) [hereinafter Brief of Public Knowledge]; Corrected En Banc Brief of Remanufacturing Associations as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant, Lexmark, No. 2014-1617 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2014), 2015 WL 4068148; see also Comput. & Commc’ns Indus. Ass’n, Members, http://www.ccianet.org/about/members [http://perma.cc/P2ES-EP8B] (last visited Feb. 13, 2016) (listing members including Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, and Samsung).The academics who have signed on to amicus briefs have been mostly aligned with the pro-exhaustion camp

 

I don't expect them to go broke or to allow illegal products but using patent law to control the legit after first sale market fly's in the face of common law and sense. That's why the Supremes' ruled 8-0 and 7-1.

Unfortunately common law and sense is under attack from all sides all day every day for every imagined reason and even when it does succeed you know someone's out there doing their damndest to find a way to screw it up in some way so they can turn the results 180 degrees from the intended direction just for their own personal/corporate extortionists gains.

Personally I buy all my over the counter allergy and whatnot stuff in their generic label forms because most are a fraction of the cost of their name brand counterparts yet I have friends who will not buy anything but the most expensive versions even though they are the exact same pills made to the exact same specs from the exact same suppliers. My $4.99 bottle or 200 allergy pills can't possibly be as effective as their $8.99 blister pack of 10 pills even though the ingredients lists and manufactures data are identical. (worst part it one of them cant afford my $4.99 bottle let alone his $8,99 pack yet he still insists his work better and are worth it.)

It's those people and those who cater to them that make me wonder what will happen if cheap pharmaceuticals and anything else like it hit the shelf. Who will take advantage of the low cost stuff and who will snub it because they have been conditioned to believe that the more expensive something is the better it has to be? How many people do you know now that justify the outrageous cost of healthcare simply because they feel their health is worth all costs even if those costs for what they get are so far from reality it's maddening and they can't begin to pay for them in the remainder of their own lifetimes?

BTW, way back in the mid 90's I worked at a pasta plant as a junior service tech. The only difference between the $6,99 a box name brand pasta and the 98 cent a box stuff was the box! We would package name brand boxes until we ran out of boxes or met the order requirement then switch right over to the generic or vice versa and the pasta mix recipe never changed one bit between them. The only difference was whose boxes we had more of to fill that day and going by all the stories I heard from my coworkers who worked in other food and such production facilities that was standard operating business wit most everything everywhere.

Still meet people to day who will scream they can taste the difference so it cant be true.

 

I'm talking about a second party pharmaceutical wholesaler that supplies drugs to an authorized pharmacy chain like inside a Walmart or Costco. Part of the problem is US companies subsidizing foreign market share with high US prices for the exact same drug or device.

I know what you are talking about. I think it is a different issue than what the case was about. But IANAL, therefore, IMHO.

And I don't understand why @tcmtech doesn't just invent his own Epipen equivalent and sell it for $10 at gas stations, but, then again, I apparently don't know a lot of things.

Hey, he brought it up... not me.

 

I know what you are talking about. I think it is a different issue than what the case was about. But IANAL, therefore, IMHO.

It overturns Federal case law that affected more than just ink refills.

Who filed briefs on each side in a printer case?
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), etc...
vs
Brief for Costco Wholesale Corporation and Retail Litigation Center, Inc, etc ...

 

And I don't understand why @tcmtech doesn't just invent his own Epipen equivalent and sell it for $10 at gas stations, but, then again, I apparently don't know a lot of things.

Hey, he brought it up... not me.

Because its should be pretty obvious that given how the system works no one like me or you or any average person could ever do such a thing here. As someone as yourself who has so much rage against the systems for how unfair and mafia like they are you should know exactly how that works.

The only way such an action will take place is if it's done by an equally powerful and off shore resourced non US pharmaceutical entity that has no want or concern for what the US pharmaceutical cartels here want. If big offshore pharmaceuticals are given the okay to come here and sell the same drugs as we have here while meeting the same requirements as everyone else they are the 800 pound gorillas that could make the $10 epipen thing, and more, a reality.

BTW. Epipens apparently cost about $70 in Europe and about $15 in Australia and less than a $1 in most asian countries.

https://www.google.com/search?q=epi...urceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=epipen+cost+in+china

So yea the $10 epipen in every gasstation thing is not impossible. It just needs a huge outside foreign pharmaceutical industry player, or a few, that can slap the US pharmaceutical cartels out of their over stuffed suits to bring it here.

That's how!

 

Pardon my french but about ****ing time.

It reminds me of game consoles such as the Xbox where hackers would get into trouble for opening the device up (that's before the hacking even started). And how world governments have not jumped on ink cartridges earlier completely illudes me. What I think would be an interesting idea is to bring in legislation on items like ink cartridges whereby all printers produced by a company have to use the same cartridge (as not to allow cheaper models to use more expensive cartridges). If printer companies make money on ink and a loss on printers, then they are doing it wrong. Sure, make money on the ink, but selling a printer at a loss? That's just dumb!

 

Unfortunately common law and sense is under attack from all sides all day every day for every imagined reason and even when it does succeed you know someone's out there doing their damndest to find a way to screw it up in some way so they can turn the results 180 degrees from the intended direction just for their own personal/corporate extortionists gains.

Personally I buy all my over the counter allergy and whatnot stuff in their generic label forms because most are a fraction of the cost of their name brand counterparts yet I have friends who will not buy anything but the most expensive versions even though they are the exact same pills made to the exact same specs from the exact same suppliers. My $4.99 bottle or 200 allergy pills can't possibly be as effective as their $8.99 blister pack of 10 pills even though the ingredients lists and manufactures data are identical. (worst part it one of them cant afford my $4.99 bottle let alone his $8,99 pack yet he still insists his work better and are worth it.)

It's those people and those who cater to them that make me wonder what will happen if cheap pharmaceuticals and anything else like it hit the shelf. Who will take advantage of the low cost stuff and who will snub it because they have been conditioned to believe that the more expensive something is the better it has to be? How many people do you know now that justify the outrageous cost of healthcare simply because they feel their health is worth all costs even if those costs for what they get are so far from reality it's maddening and they can't begin to pay for them in the remainder of their own lifetimes?

BTW, way back in the mid 90's I worked at a pasta plant as a junior service tech. The only difference between the $6,99 a box name brand pasta and the 98 cent a box stuff was the box! We would package name brand boxes until we ran out of boxes or met the order requirement then switch right over to the generic or vice versa and the pasta mix recipe never changed one bit between them. The only difference was whose boxes we had more of to fill that day and going by all the stories I heard from my coworkers who worked in other food and such production facilities that was standard operating business wit most everything everywhere.

Still meet people to day who will scream they can taste the difference so it cant be true.

Hi,

Yes i found that last statement to be interesting in my lifetime also, knowing several people who believed that if a product was X times more expensive then it must be a product that is X times better. This happens a lot with products that are hard to see the difference in because we dont know all the true ingredients.

Some of the products i am talking about where later proved scientifically that although they were not the very same product as in your examples they were not any better at all, in any way, then the cheaper brands, yet were quite a bit more expensive. Sometimes the price difference is staggering too, like 10 times higher cost. I remember one shampoo that was something like $20 USD that was shown to be no different than a $2 bottle of a cheaper brand. Marketing BS sometimes sells better than quality.

 

Pardon my french but about ****ing time.

It reminds me of game consoles such as the Xbox where hackers would get into trouble for opening the device up (that's before the hacking even started). And how world governments have not jumped on ink cartridges earlier completely illudes me. What I think would be an interesting idea is to bring in legislation on items like ink cartridges whereby all printers produced by a company have to use the same cartridge (as not to allow cheaper models to use more expensive cartridges). If printer companies make money on ink and a loss on printers, then they are doing it wrong. Sure, make money on the ink, but selling a printer at a loss? That's just dumb!

Hi,

More companies seem to be trying to 'hook' the consumer, like an addiction. Bill Maher mentioned something about this too on one of his shows.
They also have a new kick now too, which is trying to work up a "subscription" so that the consumer does not actually own something but has to keep paying for it each and every month. This i think is the road Microsoft is trying to take too because they get away with it already in some countries.
It's a shame that marketing has such a negative impact on quality and trade fairness.

 

They also have a new kick now too, which is trying to work up a "subscription" so that the consumer does not actually own something but has to keep paying for it each and every month.

For what I know, that has been going on since long time with software of any kind before MS.

 

For what I know, that has been going on since long time with software of any kind before MS.

Really? What kind of software do you pay for each and every month?
In my case, i dont pay for any software every month although i do have to pay the internet provider for use of the internet. So far all of the software i had purchased since maybe 1980 i 'own' even though they dont call it that. What i was talking about was software that you 'buy' but then still have to pay for each month like a water bill. I know there were other companies too that switched to getting a monthly fee out of you, but that was more recent and that's what i was complaining about. MS also got more 'bossy' about what you can and cant do with the software.

 

I wonder how this will effect those demanding "right to repair" in other cases. Like this case of a tractor that can only have a trivial repair done by the authorized dealer.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...aska-farmers-right-to-repair-john-deere-apple

And does this effect those who replace their car engine chip with something more sporty? At least the court has done something sensible this time.