5 ms·

I think as long as it is communicated clearly to the consumer I don't have any problem with whatever restrictions the company wants (purchasing is a voluntary d

I think as long as it is communicated clearly to the consumer I don't have any problem with whatever restrictions the company wants (purchasing is a voluntary decision).

rickycook 10y ago
saying that "purchasing is a voluntary decision" is kind of ridiculous. sometimes it's not. printer cartridges are a good example, because most of the major manufacturers do similar things with their cartridges and say you shouldn't reuse them. taking this further, they also say that you shouldn't put generic cartridges in your printer. a printer is something that in many situations (eg businesses) are not optional if you switch shouldn't to can't (like lexmark is asserting) then it's not a choice *edit for clarity
- witty_username 10y ago
  The purchase of the printer is voluntary. It is the buyer's responsibility to check that the cartridges will not be expensive. Just like how when purchasing a car, buyers check MPG to ensure the cost of fuel will not be too high.
RobertoG 10y ago
Purchasing could be a voluntary decision but, here, we are talking about changing the definition of purchasing because it's not convenient for the seller. This has been already done with music and other media, by the way.
- witty_username 10y ago
  It can be explicitly labelled as not being a "purchase".
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    That would be fine, so long as it's not sold in stores alongside other items for purchase, and is explicitly and prominently communicated to the buyer. There's nothing wrong with renting, so long as everyone knows it's a rental. Somehow, I think Lexmark might have a problem with this. They want the benefits of the rental model without the drawbacks.
  - Spivak 10y ago
    There is nothing wrong with that. For the right price it could even be an net benefit the consumer. If PrintCo rents printers to customers for a fee and takes on the accompanying liability then consumers may have access to higher quality and more durable goods as it reduces PrintCo's maintenance cost. However, using IP law to gain the rights of ownership without the responsibility is something entirely different.
- rhino369 10y ago
  >Purchasing could be a voluntary decision but, here, we are talking about changing the definition of purchasing because it's not convenient for the seller. This isn't really new. Major purchases often have contractual limitations. There was time in America where many houses had a restriction on their deed that prevented them from selling to African Americans. The fundamental problem here is the method of contracting, and this change is sort of recent. Contract law has evolved to the point where you can enter a contract just by opening a box with very vague terms on it. I think that is ridiculous. If Lexmark wants to have a program where you contractually promise to not resell in exchange for a discount, I'm fine with it. But slapping a warning label on the box shouldn't count as a contract. But there really isn't any hope of courts changing the law on contracts. It's well settled now.
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
I think it's fine to restrict the ways an artificial monopoly can be used. If you want to get all "free market" about it, drop the larger distorting effect of government sanctioned monopolies first.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Are you saying the printer market is a government sanctioned monopoly? How so? Especially regarding the part about "government sanctioned"?
kstrauser 10y ago
Go read up on the first-sale doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine OK, done reading? That's why this is terrible. Our economy is partially built on the principle that once you buy something, it's yours to do with as you see fit. There are still limits, like you can't buy a book then distribute copies of it, but in general it's yours to modify, hack, fold, spindle, and mutilate. In this context, Lexmark is trying to say "you gave us your cash, but we still own the thing". No, screw that. Toyota doesn't have a say in what I do with our minivan. I can swap its engine with one from a Ferrari if I want, paint it neon orange, and reupholster it with frog skin. It's mine. I don't have to get their permission to modify it in any way I want. (Laws still apply, of course, but that's outside of Toyota's control.) Well, same with Lexmark: they give up the right to tell me I can't refill a toner cartridge when I buy it from them. At that moment, the transaction is finished. They have money; I have full ownership of the unit.
- witty_username 10y ago
  This is just semantics. You think that this does not constitute purchasing. The company can just make it clear that they are not selling the product.
  - kstrauser 10y ago
    If they were to start doing that, we could debate those merits. However, Lexmark offered their products for sale, not rent, and they're claiming in court that some unexpected technicality makes it OK. Commerce would grind to a halt if you had to retain a lawyer every time you wanted to buy something off the shelf from Target.
    - witty_username 10y ago
      Yes, I agree.

I think as long as it is communicated clearly to the consumer I don't have any problem with whatever restrictions the company wants (purchasing is a voluntary decision).

rickycook 10y ago

saying that "purchasing is a voluntary decision" is kind of ridiculous. sometimes it's not. printer cartridges are a good example, because most of the major manufacturers do similar things with their cartridges and say you shouldn't reuse them. taking this further, they also say that you shouldn't put generic cartridges in your printer. a printer is something that in many situations (eg businesses) are not optional if you switch shouldn't to can't (like lexmark is asserting) then it's not a choice *edit for clarity

witty_username 10y ago
The purchase of the printer is voluntary. It is the buyer's responsibility to check that the cartridges will not be expensive. Just like how when purchasing a car, buyers check MPG to ensure the cost of fuel will not be too high.

RobertoG 10y ago

Purchasing could be a voluntary decision but, here, we are talking about changing the definition of purchasing because it's not convenient for the seller. This has been already done with music and other media, by the way.

witty_username 10y ago
It can be explicitly labelled as not being a "purchase".
- Karunamon 10y ago
  That would be fine, so long as it's not sold in stores alongside other items for purchase, and is explicitly and prominently communicated to the buyer. There's nothing wrong with renting, so long as everyone knows it's a rental. Somehow, I think Lexmark might have a problem with this. They want the benefits of the rental model without the drawbacks.
- Spivak 10y ago
  There is nothing wrong with that. For the right price it could even be an net benefit the consumer. If PrintCo rents printers to customers for a fee and takes on the accompanying liability then consumers may have access to higher quality and more durable goods as it reduces PrintCo's maintenance cost. However, using IP law to gain the rights of ownership without the responsibility is something entirely different.
rhino369 10y ago
>Purchasing could be a voluntary decision but, here, we are talking about changing the definition of purchasing because it's not convenient for the seller. This isn't really new. Major purchases often have contractual limitations. There was time in America where many houses had a restriction on their deed that prevented them from selling to African Americans. The fundamental problem here is the method of contracting, and this change is sort of recent. Contract law has evolved to the point where you can enter a contract just by opening a box with very vague terms on it. I think that is ridiculous. If Lexmark wants to have a program where you contractually promise to not resell in exchange for a discount, I'm fine with it. But slapping a warning label on the box shouldn't count as a contract. But there really isn't any hope of courts changing the law on contracts. It's well settled now.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

I think it's fine to restrict the ways an artificial monopoly can be used. If you want to get all "free market" about it, drop the larger distorting effect of government sanctioned monopolies first.

witty_username 10y ago
Are you saying the printer market is a government sanctioned monopoly? How so? Especially regarding the part about "government sanctioned"?

kstrauser 10y ago

Go read up on the first-sale doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine OK, done reading? That's why this is terrible. Our economy is partially built on the principle that once you buy something, it's yours to do with as you see fit. There are still limits, like you can't buy a book then distribute copies of it, but in general it's yours to modify, hack, fold, spindle, and mutilate. In this context, Lexmark is trying to say "you gave us your cash, but we still own the thing". No, screw that. Toyota doesn't have a say in what I do with our minivan. I can swap its engine with one from a Ferrari if I want, paint it neon orange, and reupholster it with frog skin. It's mine. I don't have to get their permission to modify it in any way I want. (Laws still apply, of course, but that's outside of Toyota's control.) Well, same with Lexmark: they give up the right to tell me I can't refill a toner cartridge when I buy it from them. At that moment, the transaction is finished. They have money; I have full ownership of the unit.

witty_username 10y ago
This is just semantics. You think that this does not constitute purchasing. The company can just make it clear that they are not selling the product.
- kstrauser 10y ago
  If they were to start doing that, we could debate those merits. However, Lexmark offered their products for sale, not rent, and they're claiming in court that some unexpected technicality makes it OK. Commerce would grind to a halt if you had to retain a lawyer every time you wanted to buy something off the shelf from Target.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    Yes, I agree.