Read all about it! SCOTUS rules on Cartridge Patent Exhaustion

[Roy Sletcher]

https://consumerist.com/2017/05/30/...-toner-cartridge-case-is-a-win-for-consumers/
Here is a summary of the recent ruling. Will leave it to the pundits to summarise the significance in the market place. If any.

https://consumerist.com/2017/05/30/...-toner-cartridge-case-is-a-win-for-consumers/
https://consumerist.com/2017/05/30/...-toner-cartridge-case-is-a-win-for-consumers/


rs

 

[stratman]

Good news.

From the article:

"This ruling is good news for consumers. For starters, it means that you can go ahead and use all those third-party printer cartridges — at least as far as patent law is concerned."

I don't recall aftermarket facsimiles of OEM cartridges argued in the case but about an aftermarket company refilling and selling used first-party cartridges.

 

[apetitphoto]

Third party cartridges could be patent infringement. But I'm not a patent attorney or even a lawyer...

 

[jtoolman]

UNLOCK THE P800!!!!
OK I just had to!
Joe

 

[mikling]

Good news but IMO. the DRM aspect is the clincher for refillers. Copyright and DRM is the big one.
Let's think of the early days of the IBM PC BIOS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies
Here's why it is tough. Read the paragraph on "Cloning" and the chinese wall.

Third party cartridges could be patent infringement. But I'm not a patent attorney or even a lawyer...

My interpretation is that it depends on how the printer is designed.
If the firmware requires an OEM ID or signature of some type then the aftermarket cannot duplicate that. It is like a digital signature.
The aftermarket must find a way for the printer to accept it BUT it cannot the same signature. Noticed how, on all newer Epson printers even with aftermarket carts they know that a non genuine Epson is being used. Right. Noticed how in the past, Canon knew you were using reset OEM carts. It would not allow Image Garden to work once the OEM carts were reset. Did Canon, just let it go? Hmmm...
On the older Epson printers, the chips did not signal non genuine. That was then.
Epson is letting certain models get some aftermarket room and locking some down. Again it is their choice what to do and how the market will react.
What Lenovo did was cross the line. Keep in mind that when sponge cart designs are adopted, the mfr must allow overriding the chip to allow all the useable ink to be used because there is no way that they can determine that there is exactly no ink left. As a result all ice cube carts that use sponges must allow use even after empty...including refills. Same for Canon. I would watch for firmware upgrades or new models from Lenovo that drain the ink out really quickly if the chips are overridden like Canon has done.
I say, anytime they want to lock down, they can if they want, as demonstrated by Epson, the methodolgy is there whenever they want to deploy it.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

I don't think that this ruling has much impact onto the P800 lock down, there are many other laws, restrictions from trade mark, copyright and general contract rules which can be invoked, the struggle is not over just as the last sentence in the linked comments states:
"And, as the Supreme Court points out several times, contract law — terms and conditions you agree to — is still enforceable, apart from any patent exhaustion restrictions. " Lawyers are not getting jobless in this case.

 

[stratman]

Third party cartridges could be patent infringement.

My understanding is yes, if the aftermarket manufacturing duplicates the OEM design.

The chip on cartridges can be covered by both patent and copyright, the former for the physical chip and the latter for the software coding.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

Here is some elaboration by Jon Cone on this court decision with a specific remark to the P800 blockage
http://mailchi.mp/inkjetmall/inkjetmall-newsletter-730993?e=099022940b