This case was covered on HN recently, in <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446261" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446261</a><p>I think this editorial is making this case out to be more than it is.<p>There are many ways that a company can work to restrict a person's ability to modify a product that they have purchased. Patent infringement is one way, and that argument's effectiveness has been reduced.<p>But there are other ways that a person's ability can be restricted, such as licensing and proprietary parts. This case says nothing about that.<p>So please, author, don't make like I was going to be sued if I tried to replace my iPhone's battery.
Here is the ruling if anyone is interested (the opinion starts on page 6): <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf</a><p>I think this article is taking what the ruling says and bringing it a bit far. Essentially this suit was about Lexmark suing a "remanufacturer", Impression Products, Inc., that takes used ink cartridges and refills them, instead of the consumer returning them to Lexmark, for parent infringement (I think in this specific case, the remanufacturer was refilling toner cartridges). Impression Products won this case, and the suit says that patent rights end once the cartridge is sold to a consumer.<p>I can see that this could be a landmark case in the future when one of those Right-To-Repair laws (like the one in Nebraska(?)) if the specific reason manufacturers don't want to let consumers repair their own products is due to patent issues, but more broadly I don't think it covers the entirety of the "right to repair". That case might use this as a precedent, but it will still need to be decided in a court.
The ruling in this case simply says you can't sue someone for patent infringement if they are re-selling, refurbishing or re-manufacturing your product without their permission. Further, it says that you can't sue someone for US patent infringement if they import your goods originally sold overseas. That's because patent rights are "exhausted" with the first sale, like copyright.<p>This ruling does not:<p>- prevent a seller from forcing you to sign a contract saying you won't re-manufacture or refill their product, and sue you if you violate that contract<p>- require a seller to do anything else to help you repair your product<p>- prevent Lexmark from suing cartridge refillers for patent infringement if the materials that they are using for the refill (inks, toners) violate a Lexmark patent<p>Why did Lexmark use patent in the first place? Well, the problem with using shrink-wrap agreements is that then you have to sue your customers - yuck. Lexmark's customers are the ones violating the agreement, the resellers don't have any kind of contract with Lexmark so they aren't in breach. Also, you'd have to sue thousands upon thousands of customers to chill the market - reminds me of the Napster days when record labels were trying to sue individual downloaders. Suing on patent law was a creative way to go after the resellers - but it didn't work.
Man, if only they'd made the cartridge play a little tune when the chip is disabled. Then they could do the full DMCA game. Seems like the key to modern security is to have something copyrighted behind a terrible lock
What does "stuff" mean? And what's a "right" in this situation? Does "stuff" include things like a Tesla Model S, and a "right" means that Tesla cannot remotely brick your car due to modifications? Does the "right" to repair only protect from prosecution or does it imply being given access to documentation and spare parts?
The article has this:<p>> Impression v Lexmark Isn’t About Printer Ink, It’s About Property Rights<p>to which one can agree. The object of discussion isn't limited to these two companies and this one product.<p>Then later article says:<p>> Also, how much weight do we assign those forms that no one ever reads?<p>and one would assume this could be given an even bigger weight. People accuse Bitcoin in wasting electricity but an obvious question with laws and law practices at least in US which commands a lot of resources is raised relatively rarely.
Can't lexmark just change it to a rental agreement? Use these cartriges until they run out, and then return them. If you fail to do so, lexmark doesn't care -- the point is that they would avoid exhausting their patent rights.
This is probably not the good news it seems. Apple and John Deer, as examples, are moving toward leasing/renting phones rather than outright purchasing. So if you don't own it, you don't have such a right to repair.
Previous HN discussion from 2 days ago:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446261" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446261</a>