2 ms·

No. That's what SCOTUS is saying. Lexmark is trying to enforce a contract over an item that they do not control. Is like if you signed a contract with me that e

No. That's what SCOTUS is saying. Lexmark is trying to enforce a contract over an item that they do not control. Is like if you signed a contract with me that every time you handed someone a glass of water, you would require them to say "thank you" in a non-native language. I have no control (legal or otherwise) over your actions or the glass or the water, therefore the contract is not enforceable. In the case, Lexmark relinquished its rights to the physical product in question when they sold it. Then on the basis of patent law (the idea that they own the rights to the "idea" of the toner), they tried to say that you may not sell it to anyone else. What SCOTUS is pointing out is that Lexmark's patent does not grant them control of a product they made and sold. To be clear here, the patent prohibit others from making (and subsequently selling) these toners, but if Lexmark made the toner, all bets are off.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
LukeShu 9y ago
No. Lexmark can negotiate a contract with its customers (this is unrelated to patent rights). But, if the customer sells the item to a 2nd customer (possibly in violation of the contract), then that 2nd customer is not subject to the contract, as the contract was between Lexmark and the initial customer. SCOTUS is saying that they can't use patents to say you may not sell to anyone else. You can instead use contracts to say these things, but those contracts are with the initial customers only, and don't "flow through the market" with the item.
- bluGill 9y ago
  It is quite likely that Lexmark sold the cartridge to a reseller (think walmart) who sold it to the consumer. Thus Lexmark may not be able to sue the end users successfully because there was no contract - though they could sue the reseller (walmart in this example). Of course suing your customers is a PR disaster even if you would win. Suing resellers is a bad idea as they will never carry anything you make again which means you might win one round but you can declare bankruptcy. Even if sue OfficeMax with a promise to not sue Walmart, expect that walmart drop you anyway as they cannot afford that risk.
  - aaron_m04 9y ago
    What they could do is make the cartridge inoperable without online activation, in which the customer has to agree to terms of use. Damn, that's evil...
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      they do already with the printer it'd be interesting if that could cover usage of purchased accessory
smw 9y ago
I think this is a bad read. See the other two sibling comments.
mi100hael 9y ago
False. The opinion specifically says Lexmark may have a good breach-of-contract case, but this specific case was a patent case.
ada1981 9y ago
If I sign that contract with you and don't deliver on my promise of having people tell me "thank-you" in a non-native language every time I give them a glass of water, I'd be in breach of contract with you. I'm not opposed to the deal, I just better get really incredible terms.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

LukeShu 9y ago

No. Lexmark can negotiate a contract with its customers (this is unrelated to patent rights). But, if the customer sells the item to a 2nd customer (possibly in violation of the contract), then that 2nd customer is not subject to the contract, as the contract was between Lexmark and the initial customer. SCOTUS is saying that they can't use patents to say you may not sell to anyone else. You can instead use contracts to say these things, but those contracts are with the initial customers only, and don't "flow through the market" with the item.

bluGill 9y ago
It is quite likely that Lexmark sold the cartridge to a reseller (think walmart) who sold it to the consumer. Thus Lexmark may not be able to sue the end users successfully because there was no contract - though they could sue the reseller (walmart in this example). Of course suing your customers is a PR disaster even if you would win. Suing resellers is a bad idea as they will never carry anything you make again which means you might win one round but you can declare bankruptcy. Even if sue OfficeMax with a promise to not sue Walmart, expect that walmart drop you anyway as they cannot afford that risk.
- aaron_m04 9y ago
  What they could do is make the cartridge inoperable without online activation, in which the customer has to agree to terms of use. Damn, that's evil...
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    they do already with the printer it'd be interesting if that could cover usage of purchased accessory

smw 9y ago

I think this is a bad read. See the other two sibling comments.

mi100hael 9y ago

False. The opinion specifically says Lexmark may have a good breach-of-contract case, but this specific case was a patent case.

ada1981 9y ago

If I sign that contract with you and don't deliver on my promise of having people tell me "thank-you" in a non-native language every time I give them a glass of water, I'd be in breach of contract with you. I'm not opposed to the deal, I just better get really incredible terms.