Box-Wrapping & Patent Infringement

[antonioledesma]

The Latest IP Crime: "Box-Wrap" Patent Infringement

in few words you can't refill your printer cartridges, sell your used cartriges to a remanufacturer. If you do it you're a patent-infringer

I'm one of those persons that refill their printer cartriges. sorry, but I'm not willing to pay $40usd for a color ink cartrige AND $35 for a black ink cartrige. You can buy new printers for less than $70 with both ink cartriges.
All of this if the package has the legend of "single use only"
So...you pay for the cartrige, but can't use it anymore. Are you renting it? Will it make ink cartriges less expensive?
The complete process of refilling both cartriges costs me less than $10 including gas and parking fee.

as a person made a comment on the page of the news:

How long before this gets slapped on a new car? Imagine only being able to get service at an authorized dealer...

imagine not being able to use another brand of oil for your car. What is nissan or chrysler (to name 2 companies) use El-cheap'o brand and you want to use sintetic oil? What about other parts like brakes?

Companies that base their operations on reselling, service, maintenance and replacements that are not licensed will be out of business?

maybe it's dumb, a great idea, a new form of business, but I don't like it

[RC45]

I have tried refilling my ink cartridges - and the quality of print afterwards is never the same.

This is hy I gave up.

[graywolf624]

Theres a little more to it then that. Read the actual decision:

The dispute arises from Lexmark’s advertising of its “Prebate” program, under which it gives purchasers an upfront discount in exchange for their agreement to return the empty cartridge to Lexmark for remanufacturing — a form of post-sale restriction on reuse.

It isn't that all products sold by Lexmark cant be reused under copyright law. The rulling is that the customer specifically agreed to this program to receive a lower price. They entered into a contract to do so. Thats different then just a normal we say its this way.

Consumers can opt to buy Lexmark cartridges without the Prebate post-sale restriction, but at the higher price.2

You agreed to a contract freely of your own volition. And this is how the car companies operate as well. Most warrenties work that if you replace with non factory parts and in electronics, non company representatives, your warrenty is voided. Have you ever seen the sign on your stereo. Opening will void warrenty?

[RC45]

^^ However, if the Prebate program is a defacto program open and obliged to be followed by all - it's a crock of shit ruling... right?

After all- what if I don't want a Prebate - I just want the cartridge and once I own it, want the freedom to do with it what I want.. I mean - exactly what Intellectual Propery rights am I violated by owning something?

[graywolf624]

^^ However, if the Prebate program is a defacto program open and obliged to be followed by all - it's a crock of shit ruling... right? After all- what if I don't want a Prebate - I just want the cartridge and once I own it, want the freedom to do with it what I want.. I mean - exactly what Intellectual Propery rights am I violated by owning something?

Its not intellectual property rights at all. ITs contract rights. By opening the product you agree to the terms and conditions of the product. Your arent forced into the contract, but rather choose to do it.

Reading the actual text of the decision the focus is not on intellectual rights.
Its

It found that the company could legally enforce the post-sale restriction under a Federal Circuit decision allowing patent holders to limit the use of their products after sale.

The same law thats used for not allowing decoding of dvd encryption.

You don't like their contract, contract with someone else. Thats a free market. Theres plenty of competition.. Hell if you wanted to you could start your own business producing the same thing.

defacto program open and obliged to be followed by all -

The wording clearly says you can buy the same cartridge without the prebate.. Not to mention you can buy the product from someone else.
In effect you don't necessarily own a product just cause you hand money over. technically it could be considered a lease and it would mean the same thing.

[RC45]

Fair enough - but its all being referenced under IP discussion over there.

But anyway, one way contracts are always there to screw the poorer/less powerful parties.

I have at times tried to screw ith the phon company or cable compnay etc.

I will send them a cheque - and then write some terms on the cheque.

Such as "Cashing this cheque indicates full and final settlement of all debts with regard to all current and future cable services. The depositor further agrees to hold the current subscriber exempt from all future payments for subscriptions sevrices and further more agrees to expand current subscription to include all current and future available channels at no cost to curren subscriber.

The agreement also binds the depositor and all entities affiloated therewith to pay the subscriber a sum of $100 per month for time spent on hold when calling these entities"

etc etc etc.

Then I would write, with a copy of the cashed cheque attached and ask where my money was, and why I am still gettign a bill when they cashed the cheque agreeing to the terms and condiotns.

It always ended with a "ok - tell us when to appear in court".

In other words... he with the deepest pockets has carte blanche to pencil up onesided contracts.

[graywolf624]

Actually its more like, he who sells the product has the power to pencil up one sided contracts. If you were a vendor to said phone company they would have to do what you want or take their ball and go home.
Technically the phone company could not sign your check and then sue you for unpaid bill. The seller of the product always gets the final say on contract. Thats the way the world works. They also in general can decide whom they will and will not sell too, how much they will sell for, and any other conditions. Thats the nature of business. You as a person sending a check arent buying a product, your paying for it.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by graywolf624 Actually its more like, he who sells the product has the power to pencil up one sided contracts. If you were a vendor to said phone company they would have to do what you want or take their ball and go home. Technically the phone company could not sign your check and then sue you for unpaid bill. The seller of the product always gets the final say on contract. Thats the way the world works.

I still maintian it's the size of the entities involved if the matter ever goes to court and you never had a part in the contract structure.

I have been the technical resource on a couple of recent contracts with vendors of the company I now work for - and to a T they (the Vendors) will do what needs to be done to get the deal closed - and "our" legal team will push back contracts until the terms meet the customers requirments.

This way the company's legal team has had a chance to review the terms and had those unfavourable to the customer (us) be changed before the deal was struck. And every deal is very one sided when the process starts - with all favour to the vendor.

The big difference is that I was never a part of the contract structure that Lexmark put together before they put their product on the market with a contract that affect me.

There for, I should have the opportunity to object to any and all terms and offer my own versions of such before the deal is consumated - and have my own variation of said contract enforcable - by me

This really is not a case of "how the world wors" - it is a case of "how the world has been manipulated to work"

If my purchase of Lexmark products made any differnce to Lexmark, they would entertain my objections to the contract wording... but because my $30 means nothing to them - the system makes no concession for me.

Simpy saying "go buy elsewhere" is not the correct moral answer - it is simply my only escape from their hold over me

In other words - the letter of the law is their's to manipulate but mine to fear..

Viv le Revolutione...

[graywolf624]

I have been the technical resource on a coupe eof recent contracts with vendors of the company I no work for - and to a T they (the Vendors) will do what needs to be done to get the deal closed - and "our" legal team will push back contracts until the terms meet the customers requirments. This way the companies legal team has had a chance to review the terms and had those unfavourable to the customer (us) be changed before the deal was struck. And every deal is very one sided when the process starts.

I disagree. This is not because the buying company is bigger. Its because your customers have other companies to choose from. If your company doesnt adjust for them, just like you as a customer for lexmark can take their ball and go home.
Now if this lexmark thing really bothers you, you organize people not to buy their products. They'll change it when they see it isnt selling.

There for, I should have the opportunity to object to any and all terms and offer my own versions of such before the deal is consumated.

And you in fact do. You have an option to either not buy the product or buy the product at a higher rate, thus not entering that particular contractual agreement. In effect they have put the offer in the table, you take it or you walk. Your decision.

I my purcahse of Lexmark products made any differnce to lexmar, they would entertain my objections to the contract wording... but because my $30 means nothing to them - the system makes no concession for me. Simpy saying "go buy elsewhere" is not the correct moral answer - it is simply my only escape from their hold over me

Your 30 dollars means nothing to them. The 30 dollars of 1000s does. If its a valid means people will continue to buy. If people dont like it they'll go elsewhere. Its not about moral or immoral. Its a question that a person who sells you a product has a right to tailor their product in however they see fit. As the vendor selling a product they can make the contract however they want. But just as you, the customer can walk away. Now given lexmark isn't the only game in town, and given its their product to sell and no ones forcing you to buy, I see no problem. A contract is binding to anyone if you agree to it and had an option to get out of it. You in this case met both requirements. This isnt a situation where you working a job and have to buy your food from the company... ect.. ect..
You have the option to take your ball and walk. The contract favors the person who has something that the other person wants and who wants the other part more. Thats the way it is and the way it should be.
If I have a baseball card I bought for 3 dollars that I dont give a shit about, but your desperate for it.. How is it not my right to sell it to you for 150 dollars? In fact even more so, how is not my right to stipulate that you return it to me after x number of years in tact similar to a lease?
Its not cause Im rich, its cause Im the party with control. All negotiations always favor the party with control of the more sought after object.
In your case with the cartridge, the 30 dollars saved buying their product rather then competitor is worth more to you then the cost to lexmark for the ink. Thus they dictate the terms.

In comparison if Im the worlds only supplier of widgets. And say gm wants these widgets. Now it doesn't mater if gm is what it is and Im what I am now. I dictate the terms cause I control the power side of the agreement.

That is what a laizze faire government is about. You as a customer have a choice and them as a supplier have a choice. You push your position with your money and ultimately the optimum situation arises as the market system sorts out what the people want.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by graywolf624 There for, I should have the opportunity to object to any and all terms and offer my own versions of such before the deal is consumated. And you in fact do. You have an option to either not buy the product or buy the product at a higher rate, thus not entering that particular contractual agreement. In effect they have put the offer in the table, you take it or you walk. Your decision.

I don't want to "just walk" - I want an opportunity to negotiate better terms ..

You know as well as I do, that the "Prebate free product" is probably not easily sourced or available - and you are then forced to either abondon your previous investment in a Lexmark printer (because you can't buy and refill cartridges.. ) - or accept their terms and buy the "prebate enriched" version.


For the record - I have never bought a Lexmark Inkjet printer - price is too high and output sucks.

I prefer entering into a one-sided agreement with Epson... their stuff is cheaper, works better - and refilling their cartridges just results in a watery mess.. hehehe

[graywolf624]

You know as well as I do, that the "Prebate free product" is probably not easily sourced or available - and you are then forced to either abondon your previous investment in a Lexmark printer (because you can't buy and refill cartridges.. ) - or accept their terms and buy the "prebate enriched" version.

It wasnt easy for me to get my ps2 at msrp.. Does that mean I can gripe to the feds that someone tried to sell me one for 600 dollars?

In that case you shouldnt have bought the lexmark printer. Hell tommorrow lexmark could quit producing cartridges for the product leaving you in the same boat. No where did they sign an agreement saying the cartridges for that product would be available. Its the risk you take with the decision.

Hell I dont like that cars are exceedingly complex and alot of the diagnose stuff nowadays has to be done by the manufacturer, but at the same time, its their right to do it, and if I didn't like it that much I could
a) buy an old car
b) make my own car and sell it(all Id need was an investor and a plan as would anyone else)
c) buy an existing alternative(maybe a kit car or something that isnt made as such).

The truth is, like millions of other americans, that isn't that important to me. So thats the way things work.