4 Replies Latest reply on Jun 4, 2017 6:47 AM by mistered

    Supreme Court to rule in landmark Patent Exhaustion case

    black_zion

      Why You Should Care About The Supreme Court Case On Toner Cartridges – Consumerist

       

      There's been a large number of briefs filed on this issue as well: Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. - SCOTUSblog

       

      Even INTEL is weighing in, and they're against Lexmark, possibly the only time Intel has done anything for the consumer's best interest... http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/15-1189_amicus_pet_intel_dell_and_vizio.pdf

        • Re: Supreme Court to rule in landmark Patent Exhaustion case
          black_zion

          Supreme court has ruled: 8-0 in favor of Impression Products. This effectively kills "shrink-wrap licenses", and could have wide ranging beneficial effects for consumers.

           

          https://lexroll.com/impression-products-inc-v-lexmark-international-inc-581-u-s-___-2017/?print=pdf

           

          There are a multitude of articles on it, but I think The Washington Post's (owned by Amazon) is quite interesting: How a Supreme Court ruling on printer cartridges changes what it means to buy almost anything - The Washington Post

           

          What happens next?

          This debate over ownership is only getting more complicated as the world moves increasingly to digital goods, including subscription-based streaming. With apps like Spotify, for example, consumers are choosing to rent, not buy. The sprawling digital economy raises new questions for legal experts about access and ownership.

           

          “The next logical step will be for courts to recognize that people who buy digital goods are owners of those goods, not mere licensees, and can resell and tinker with their digital goods to the same extent as purchasers of tangible property,” said the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a consumer group that supported Impression in the case, on Tuesday in a blog post.

           

          Why do I think this is the most interesting? Take a look at the EULA of any game, or most software, these days, it says you are a "licensee", not an owner, and they prohibit you from reselling the game (especially if it's a digital copy). Wouldn't it be great if we could treat our digital games as if they were physical games, able to give or resell? This ruling allows that. This will no doubt lead to a shift in games where the online component and offline component are separated, where the online component is one use only and the offline component can be used multiple times but requiring the purchase of a new online component. Textbook manufacturers have been doing this for years. You can buy a new chemistry textbook for $60 which includes the online component required for classes, or you can buy a used copy for a pittance and the online component for $30.

           

          kingfish goodplay Earnhardt savagebeastzero

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
            • Re: Supreme Court to rule in landmark Patent Exhaustion case
              savagebeastzero

              This is most definitely interesting. There really needs to be a clear line that states that we own our digital "license's" already as we move towards complete digital goods in the gaming industry and general digital goods as well. It's something that's bothered me quite a bit over the years. Initially the idea of digital sales sounded like a good option, as publishers consistently made a case for the transition on the consumers behalf stating that there would be an end consumer savings with reduced prices due to lowered manufacturer cost. Yet it never happened and instead we consistently see digital games being sold for far more than the "brick and mortar" hard copies, which after purchase can be resold.

               

              I regret building my Steam library to such a degree these days, because it's filled with hundreds of games that haven't and will likely never be played. Yet if that same collection was full of unopened hard copies, I'd easily resell them for hundreds if not thousands of dollars, more than enough to invest in future upgrades, heck I'd be happy to get rid of them for a few days of Chinese take out! So, hopefully this case pushes the industry further and further into the realm of a pro-consumer policy enmasse.

               

              I'm definitely long overdue for some Chinese food, aren't we all?

              1 of 1 people found this helpful