> patents haven't savaged the printer marketplace I'd _agree_ with you if the EFF claimed that, but they didn't in the article linked. The EFF here isn't maki

> patents haven't savaged the printer marketplace I'd _agree_ with you if the EFF claimed that, but they didn't in the article linked. The EFF here isn't making broad brush claims about market structures, except maybe for this section: > "Courts and legal scholars have long acknowledged that such restrictions impair the purchasers’ personal autonomy, interfere with efficient use of property, create confusion in markets, and increase information costs" But even here I argue that's the wrong reading. When taken in the context of the rest of the article, this appears to be a traditional consumer advocacy approach taken from the Ralph Nader playbook.