3 ms·

Some context for this consequential decision: http://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522826514/supreme-courts-decision-about-printer-cartridges-could-have-big-consequen

• euyyn 9y ago
  Thanks! The usage being litigated (and confirmed lawful) was this: > A Lexmark refill toner cartridge costs about $130. It's not cheap. So there are businesses that have sprung up that take empty Lexmark printer cartridges, refill them and then resell them for a lot cheaper.
• Steko 9y ago
  I wonder if this will affect the various Qualcomm suits. Qualcomm tries to collect patent royalties from (say) Foxconn based on the sale price between (say) Apple and the carrier/consumer. Edit: moved long commentary from FOSS blog to separate thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14448205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14448205
  • test6554 9y ago
    If Apple purchased Qualcomm chips and then resold them as part of the iPhone, then it might affect those suits, but this is not the case. Apple licenses proprietary Qualcomm technology from Qualcomm. Apple uses the technology, but builds its own chips.
    • Steko 9y ago
      No Qualcomm's licenses are with Foxconn et al. Apple has been negotiating for a direct license but they haven't reached any agreement: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-lawsuit-qualcomm-idUSKCN18D1EC http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-lawsuit-qualcomm-idU... Qualcomm apparently filed an amicus brief in support of Lexmark in this case: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/15-1189_amicus_resp_qualcomm.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/15-1189...