At its most basic, the case is a dispute over Lexmark’s patent rights regarding refilling printer cartridges. Impression Products is a small business with about 25 employees. It specializes in buying used printer cartridges and remanufacturing them. In 2012, Lexmark decided to add Impression to an already existing lawsuit against other remanufacturers. While the other defendants eventually settled, Image has stuck it out and the case has made it to the highest court in the land.
You can read the full, technical details of the case here but the simple version goes like this: Since the ‘90s Lexmark has used what’s called a “shrink-wrap license” with its cartridges. It offers a “prebate” to consumers by knocking off 20% of the price in exchange for their agreement to never resell or reuse the cartridge. The consumer agrees to this the second they open the package. Essentially, Lexmark believes that those cartridges belong to them, not the consumer reselling them because the consumer didn’t have the right to sell them in the first place.
25 years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears patent cases, carved an exception out of the patent exhaustion principle allowing patentees to set post-sale restrictions so long as these are otherwise legal and “clearly communicated.” In a separate case, the Federal Circuit concluded that when a patented item is sold abroad, the patentee’s U.S. rights are not exhausted at all. The Federal Circuit upheld both of these precedents when it ruled against Impression Products earlier this year. The Supreme Court has never ruled on either of them.
If Lexmark claims to own the cartridges, then they're responsible for the disposal and cleanup of them. Every landfill that has one of their products is poisoning the ground with heavy metal and chemical contamination because of (((their))) product.
Angel Jackson
My dad sold printers in the 90's and he was such a closet case.
Connor Davis
It's cheaper to buy a new printer than new ink.
Mason Harris
Printers are sold at a loss because the manufacturer makes their money on the ink.
Camden Phillips
>The consumer agrees to this the second they open the package What a bunch of fags. Line them up against a wall.
Xavier Miller
Lexmark printers are fucking garbage.
Henry Thompson
> buying ink jet
Get a laser printer you stupid chucks
Brayden Nelson
>I don't want people to be able to sell products the way they want to Fuck off commie scum.
Connor Robinson
>commie scum Unless they tell you before you open the package, that is not right. If they tell you "the moment you open our package, you agree to these terms", I am fine with it. If they don't, antitrust.
Noah Ramirez
They can sell it however they want to, but the consumer has the right to their of the contract and should be notified, and agree to, terms such as continued ownership of the product.
Licensing the ink cartridge is fine, but they should also have provisions for return of used cartridges because it's their property and they're not having to pay for disposal of used product.
That's not communism you fucking faggot.
Isaiah Cox
This IS a good strategy. Find in favor of Lexmark and then have the EPA come down on them for industrial dumping.
Or explain that this is the choice available to them. Win, and we expect you to round up at least 90% of all the inventory you have ever sold since adding the shrink wrap agreement. Lose and you can avoid this
Bentley Lopez
Wow, so IBM is still doing the same antitrust types of things they've been doing for decades?
huh
Jack Bell
>Licensing the ink cartridge is fine, but they should also have provisions for return of used cartridges because it's their property and they're not having to pay for disposal of used product. Lexmark didnt claim ownership over the cartridges, they set restrictions on reuse of them.
Jayden Campbell
That's how I figure it should play out. Such a case will stop a lot of that bullshit. If the consumer isn't aware of the "shink wrap license" and agrees to it, then they're not liable.
Gavin Russell
If they can set legal restrictions on them, that means they have controlling interest in them - meaning they are responsible for them legally.
The consumer is unaware of the contract as it is not explicitly, and easily, stated in a manner which a ((reasonable person)) would automatically know that they do not actually own the product.
Matthew Hill
op is wrong, lexmark does not 'own' the printer cartridges, they own the right to SELL them. therefore the profits belong to lexmark, without any of the responsibility of responsible/ethical cleanup of discarded cartridges.
David Martinez
>The consumer is unaware of the contract as it is not explicitly, and easily, stated in a manner which a ((reasonable person)) would automatically know that they do not actually own the product. Again this has nothing to do with ownership. Read the OP before posting again. Although in reality you'll keep on fabricating the events in your mind so you dont have to damage your fragile ego.
Zachary Rivera
They have controlling interest in them via shrink wrap licensing, you dense cunt. They manufacture and sell them. The consumer purchases them for the ink, the not the cartridge.
I'm speaking from a legal-battle angle. If Lexmark wants to claim control of the product via use-license, then "who owns/controls the product?" must be established. If the end-user does not own the product, only the use of it, then does Lexmark? If not, who does?
These are the things I would argue in the case. Read my posts and you'll see that making a legal argument is what I'm doing here.
Blake Torres
>Licensing ink cartridges is fine
gas yourself
Blake Hill
>I'm speaking from a legal-battle angle. >Read my posts and you'll see that making a legal argument is what I'm doing here. You're not. You're not a lawyer. You dont have a JD nor are you a member of a bar association.You're not even enrolled in a JD program, nor do you have the bachelors degree required to do so. You refuse to acknowledge you have no idea what you're talking about because you're ego is that fragile.
Brayden Gonzalez
its weird how much of pol seems supportive of the inky jew
Hudson Taylor
Dont buy Lexmark printers. Problem solved.
Ryder Reyes
This is Jewish bullshit.
Jace Phillips
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
kek
Samuel Phillips
kill yourself, ancap
Sincerely,
A NatSoc
Benjamin Wilson
Why is it impossible to find a printer that >costs less than $50 >doesn't break down within a month >can be refilled with any printer ink
Seriously, I don't get it. It's not like it's expensive to produce a printer, it's just a piece of plastic with a couple of servomotors in it. It shouldn't cost anything. I don't care about bluetooth, wifi, built-in scanner or whatever else it has. I just want a simple printer, why is that too much to ask for? And to add insult to injury all printers you buy will add spy microdots to all paper you put in it, that never seems to stop working.
Gabriel White
Yeah, in the 90s maybe. Today there's nothing to an ink printer and they can be stamped out like bubble gum.
Joshua Stewart
>I don't want people to own things they own Fuck off you anti-freedom "intellectual property" shill.
Jace Cooper
There are guides on the internet for getting rid of your printer's kill counter.
Daniel Fisher
kill counter?
Levi Rivera
Printers are designed to cease to operate once they've printed certain amount of shit.
Lincoln Bell
>will add spy microdots to all paper
what?
Ryder Morales
they've been around since the 90s. it was justified as a help prevent counterfeiting but is really just used as a way for the jews to track you
Hudson Brown
what're the implications for rulings on this case? How will it affect people?
Camden Perry
why dont they do the same thing with pens too while they're at it?
Gabriel Carter
Cost/benefit alignment is literally the opposite of communism. Unless the purchaser explicitly agrees to take on the environmental risk under informed consent, the manufacturer is on the hook. The manufacturer is in a better position to know.
Chase Bell
i don't speak jew someone explain this
Grayson Hughes
They don't claim to own them. >i don't want to be able to use my own products however I want. Fucking libcucks, you'll accept anything as long as it has the label private on it.
