Courts looking into printer cartridges?

"RichA" wrote
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDlXhMfiW3c
|

Frankly I'm not willing to spend time watching videos
when I don't know what they are. It apparently
wasn't important enough for you to explain your point.

If you're talking about the Supreme Court case, it's
a very interesting situation. The transcript of proceedings
is he

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...-1189_6468.pdf

I converted it to text and have been trying to slog
through it, to get a sense of where the case is going.

One version of the story is he

http://fortune.com/2017/03/21/suprem...mark-printers/

A clearer version might be this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/b...tent-case.html
(Won't load without cookies enabled.)

It's a significant issue in that it's dealing with whether a
patent allows the manufacturer to control how a product
is used. Lexmark is trying to block cartridge refills by claiming
that single-use is part of their sale terms. That conflicts
with first sale doctrine in terms of copyright, which provides
that all rights are transferred with a sale. (Otherwise it's really
a lease, after all.) But Lexmark is not even claiming copyright
infringement. They're claiming they have patent rights on a
sold product! Surprisingly, lower courts have sided with Lexmark.

There's a similar trend happening with copyright.

https://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-o...ip-john-deere/

Companies are trying to claim they control a product sold
because copyrighted software is used in that product. One
example is John Deere preventing unauthorized repair of
tractors. They want to control that business. I recently read
that American farmers are now using Russian hacks to bypass
restrictions on their own tractors.

To clarify, John Deere is saying they still own the software
in your tractor and thus partially control what can be done
with the tractor. The Lexmark case is analogous to John
Deere saying they still own the tractor itself because it's
patented. Therefore they can control how/where you use
the tractor, for how long, etc.

Could camera companies eventually try to control where
you can store your photos? Might you be forced to buy
all car parts from the manufacturer? The implications of
this are very broad, if either copyright or patent is redefined
to mean that the producer owns the copy you bought.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Could camera companies eventually try to control where
you can store your photos?

no.

Might you be forced to buy
all car parts from the manufacturer?

you're late to the party.

numerous car parts are only available from the manufacturer. no third
party options available.

in some cases, certain repairs can *only* be done by authorized dealers
because the necessary tools are made available only to them. your local
mechanic *can't* do it.