5 ms·

I don't know about Patent law, but it should be made illegal to mask renting as selling. That would be first step to let consumers know. Like in this Lexmark ca

by atirip 11y ago

I don't know about Patent law, but it should be made illegal to mask renting as selling. That would be first step to let consumers know. Like in this Lexmark case - if you are required to return the cartridge, then this transaction is not sale. And on and on, same with electric cars where you do not own the battery.

larrys 11y ago
"if you are required to return the cartridge" I'd love to see the exact legal language that even specifies that condition "required to return". After all we can assume that most people don't do that or actually that those who don't return the cartridge almost certainly suffer no legal jeopardy for that inaction. If you are required to do something by a contract, then you would expect some degree of enforcement when the contract terms haven't been met. My guess is that Lexmark can't show any action they take for cartridges not returned. I've often noted how companies that sell laser cartridges will give you a free label to UPS the cartridge back to them. They cloak it as "recycling" but it serves two purposes. It gives them a free cartridge to refill but it also takes away a cartridge that could be used by a third party that would a sale from the company.
URSpider94 11y ago
In the US, unless you are signing a contract of some sort, then a sale is a sale. Any physical object that you simply buy at the store is yours, full stop. I don't understand the comment that you make about not owning the batteries in an electric car. If you own the electric car, then you own the batteries, that's not in question. However, manufacturers often put measures into place that make ownership less useful: -- They might load software into the device that makes it respond to their control, and limits your ability to use the object -- They might restrict availability of manuals, repair parts and other information to incentivize you to use their service facilities However, I would argue that these are not the same as infringing on your ownership.
- vinbreau 11y ago
  I agree what you say should be true, but companies are trying to change the First-Sale Doctrine. Companies like John Deer say you are licensing the tech, not buying it, thus you do not own everything in the vehicle you 'bought'. Software companies have used this logic for years and it's beginning to bleed over into hardware. Companies want you to license things and do away with ownership. I'm on your side though, I believe in the First-Sale Doctrine and do not want to see it undermined, but there's a financial incentive for companies to do away with it and they will keep trying unless we make hard rulings in cases like this one against Lexmark. Look at what Nintendo tried to do with the resale market of their game discs and cartridges.
  - giaour 11y ago
    Wait, the John Deere lawsuits were about hardware? I thought they were arguing that they only licensed (and didn't sell) the firmware controlling their newer tractors. I.e., the same bullshit companies have been pulling for decades. IIRC, the original inspiration for the Free Software Foundation was a buggy, restrictively licensed printer driver.
    - vinbreau 11y ago
      Sorry, didn't mean to muddy the conversation. It's not the hardware they say is licensed, it's the necessary software used to run the machine. Either way, you don't own the entire product, only part of it, and the most essential part is what is licensed. Without the software the hardware is useless so it may as well be the hardware.
      - giaour 11y ago
        In theory, someone could write GPL tractor firmware, and I don't think anyone from John Deere could legally prevent you from replacing their locked-down firmware with GnuTractor or whatever. (Then again, IANAL, so maybe they could?) Frankly, this seems like an area where the FSF could do a lot of good and garner a lot of goodwill.
        11y ago
- dikaiosune 11y ago
  > They might load software into the device that makes it respond to their control, and limits your ability to use the object I'd say that's a pretty direct infringement on my ownership, but then again I've got a few tin-foil hats lying around.
- rnovak 11y ago
  I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with US news, but this isn't true, at least until it's decided in court. GM, John Deere, and Ford all have the opposite opinion[1][2][3] [1]http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/04/john-deere-and-gm-says-you-dont-really-own-any-vehicles-bought-from-them-you-only-have-an-implied-license-for-the-life-of-the-vehicle-to-operate-the-vehicle/ http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/04/john-deere-and... [2]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150421/23581430744/gm-says-that-while-you-may-own-your-car-it-owns-software-it-thanks-to-copyright.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150421/23581430744/gm-sa... [3]http://news.boldride.com/2015/04/gm-wants-to-make-working-on-your-own-car-illegal/76702/ http://news.boldride.com/2015/04/gm-wants-to-make-working-on... Not to mention I think it's currently illegal to Jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android, despite them being yours. I really do wish the US was as cut/dry as you make it seem, and I wish they cared about consumers more, but in reality, Companies get far more rights then we, as consumers, do. Edit:Formatting
  - daxelrod 11y ago
    > Not to mention I think it's currently illegal to Jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android, despite them being yours. Has the 2012 DMCA jailbreaking exemption now expired? I know exemptions expire every three years, but I wasn't sure exactly when.
    - pmh 11y ago
      It will expire in late October this year if the Librarian of Congress/US Copyright Office does not renew the exemption.
    - rnovak 11y ago
      From what I understand, the exemptions only allow jailbrakeing/rooting with permission from the Manufacturer, which I highly doubt would be given from 80-90% of manufacturers
      - pmh 11y ago
        Your parent is referring to a DMCA exemption approved by the US Copyright Office in 2012. Jailbreaking phones is currently legal "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of [lawfully obtained software] applications with computer programs on the telephone handset"[0], while jailbreaking tablets is not. See also this timeline of the EFF's efforts in getting DMCA exemptions: https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  >However, I would argue that these are not the same as infringing on your ownership. You could argue that, but you'd be going against the clear meaning of ownership over the last few hundred years.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
One could argue they are actually selling you the ink and simply renting out the cartridge. Not sure if the verbiage on the terms of sale in this case support that.
- kstrauser 11y ago
  > Not sure if the verbiage on the terms of sale in this case support that. When I swing by Office Max to pick up toner, or click the Amazon button to add it to my card, there is literally no verbiage either presented to me or agreed to by me that would indicate anything other than a flat-out sale. One can't argue any such thing because no contract is sought or required for end users to buy toner.
novaleaf 11y ago
I don't know about the battery, but when you buy a car you don't own the software/firmware, or at least that is what the mfg's want to tell us.

by atirip 11y ago

larrys 11y ago

"if you are required to return the cartridge" I'd love to see the exact legal language that even specifies that condition "required to return". After all we can assume that most people don't do that or actually that those who don't return the cartridge almost certainly suffer no legal jeopardy for that inaction. If you are required to do something by a contract, then you would expect some degree of enforcement when the contract terms haven't been met. My guess is that Lexmark can't show any action they take for cartridges not returned. I've often noted how companies that sell laser cartridges will give you a free label to UPS the cartridge back to them. They cloak it as "recycling" but it serves two purposes. It gives them a free cartridge to refill but it also takes away a cartridge that could be used by a third party that would a sale from the company.

URSpider94 11y ago

In the US, unless you are signing a contract of some sort, then a sale is a sale. Any physical object that you simply buy at the store is yours, full stop. I don't understand the comment that you make about not owning the batteries in an electric car. If you own the electric car, then you own the batteries, that's not in question. However, manufacturers often put measures into place that make ownership less useful: -- They might load software into the device that makes it respond to their control, and limits your ability to use the object -- They might restrict availability of manuals, repair parts and other information to incentivize you to use their service facilities However, I would argue that these are not the same as infringing on your ownership.

vinbreau 11y ago
I agree what you say should be true, but companies are trying to change the First-Sale Doctrine. Companies like John Deer say you are licensing the tech, not buying it, thus you do not own everything in the vehicle you 'bought'. Software companies have used this logic for years and it's beginning to bleed over into hardware. Companies want you to license things and do away with ownership. I'm on your side though, I believe in the First-Sale Doctrine and do not want to see it undermined, but there's a financial incentive for companies to do away with it and they will keep trying unless we make hard rulings in cases like this one against Lexmark. Look at what Nintendo tried to do with the resale market of their game discs and cartridges.
- giaour 11y ago
  Wait, the John Deere lawsuits were about hardware? I thought they were arguing that they only licensed (and didn't sell) the firmware controlling their newer tractors. I.e., the same bullshit companies have been pulling for decades. IIRC, the original inspiration for the Free Software Foundation was a buggy, restrictively licensed printer driver.
  - vinbreau 11y ago
    Sorry, didn't mean to muddy the conversation. It's not the hardware they say is licensed, it's the necessary software used to run the machine. Either way, you don't own the entire product, only part of it, and the most essential part is what is licensed. Without the software the hardware is useless so it may as well be the hardware.
    - giaour 11y ago
      In theory, someone could write GPL tractor firmware, and I don't think anyone from John Deere could legally prevent you from replacing their locked-down firmware with GnuTractor or whatever. (Then again, IANAL, so maybe they could?) Frankly, this seems like an area where the FSF could do a lot of good and garner a lot of goodwill.
      - 11y ago
dikaiosune 11y ago
> They might load software into the device that makes it respond to their control, and limits your ability to use the object I'd say that's a pretty direct infringement on my ownership, but then again I've got a few tin-foil hats lying around.
rnovak 11y ago
I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with US news, but this isn't true, at least until it's decided in court. GM, John Deere, and Ford all have the opposite opinion[1][2][3] [1]http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/04/john-deere-and-gm-says-you-dont-really-own-any-vehicles-bought-from-them-you-only-have-an-implied-license-for-the-life-of-the-vehicle-to-operate-the-vehicle/ http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/04/john-deere-and... [2]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150421/23581430744/gm-says-that-while-you-may-own-your-car-it-owns-software-it-thanks-to-copyright.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150421/23581430744/gm-sa... [3]http://news.boldride.com/2015/04/gm-wants-to-make-working-on-your-own-car-illegal/76702/ http://news.boldride.com/2015/04/gm-wants-to-make-working-on... Not to mention I think it's currently illegal to Jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android, despite them being yours. I really do wish the US was as cut/dry as you make it seem, and I wish they cared about consumers more, but in reality, Companies get far more rights then we, as consumers, do. Edit:Formatting
- daxelrod 11y ago
  > Not to mention I think it's currently illegal to Jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android, despite them being yours. Has the 2012 DMCA jailbreaking exemption now expired? I know exemptions expire every three years, but I wasn't sure exactly when.
  - pmh 11y ago
    It will expire in late October this year if the Librarian of Congress/US Copyright Office does not renew the exemption.
  - rnovak 11y ago
    From what I understand, the exemptions only allow jailbrakeing/rooting with permission from the Manufacturer, which I highly doubt would be given from 80-90% of manufacturers
    - pmh 11y ago
      Your parent is referring to a DMCA exemption approved by the US Copyright Office in 2012. Jailbreaking phones is currently legal "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of [lawfully obtained software] applications with computer programs on the telephone handset"[0], while jailbreaking tablets is not. See also this timeline of the EFF's efforts in getting DMCA exemptions: https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States
TrevorJ 11y ago
>However, I would argue that these are not the same as infringing on your ownership. You could argue that, but you'd be going against the clear meaning of ownership over the last few hundred years.

throwawaykf05 11y ago

One could argue they are actually selling you the ink and simply renting out the cartridge. Not sure if the verbiage on the terms of sale in this case support that.

kstrauser 11y ago
> Not sure if the verbiage on the terms of sale in this case support that. When I swing by Office Max to pick up toner, or click the Amazon button to add it to my card, there is literally no verbiage either presented to me or agreed to by me that would indicate anything other than a flat-out sale. One can't argue any such thing because no contract is sought or required for end users to buy toner.

novaleaf 11y ago

I don't know about the battery, but when you buy a car you don't own the software/firmware, or at least that is what the mfg's want to tell us.