
Supreme Court Should Block Printer Company’s Ploy to Undermine Consumer Rights - wslh
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/supreme-court-should-block-printer-companys-ploy-undermine-consumer-rights
======
jakeogh
Another move in the war on general purpose computing.

Printers (and 3D printers) are as much of a threat to IP as the internet
was/is. Nobody would argue that the costs of that threat outweighed the
benefits, we all understand it was worth it. I think the same will be true for
3D printing.

I'll enjoy ignoring Lexmark next time I buy.

~~~
digi_owl
There is both an outside war and an inside war going on, and right now i worry
as much or more about the inside war.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The problem with both of these wars is that their participants are mostly
either unaware about the conflict, or without any intent to fight in it. On
the outside, you have people wanting more security, pressure of various
business models (e.g. IP protection), and people who would just want to watch
the new episode of their favourite show with as little hassle as possible. On
the inside, you have techies following the trends, or following money. I doubt
many of them consciously want to destroy general-purpose computing, but the
end result of the aggregate trend is nevertheless a huge threat. And it's hard
to fight against without looking like an idealist with head in the (cloudless)
sky, or an RMS follower, or something like that. Short-term practical thinking
unfortunately tends to win over the big picture.

~~~
walterbell
Some money is shifting to the "Edge" to supplement the cloud, due to volume of
sensor data and need for real-time response to sensed events at the edge,
[http://a16z.com/2016/12/16/the-end-of-cloud-
computing/](http://a16z.com/2016/12/16/the-end-of-cloud-computing/)

------
Natsu
If the doctrine of patent exhaustion is undermined, I can only imagine how the
public's ability to use general purpose computers might be restricted.
Possibly the only unencumbered computer I own is an 8088 that hasn't been
powered on for well over a decade.

~~~
runfaster2000
Was looking through our alumni magazine this weekend. This section [0] really
caught my attention. Massive props to the Prof. That said, seriously nice
donation.

"In 1984, Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC)’s donation of $24 million
provides the University of Waterloo with eight new VAX machines — on the
condition that work created using the machines would be the property of DEC.

Wes Graham, a professor of computer science, stopped the shipment until the
company agreed to Waterloo’s policy of leaving intellectual property in the
hands of its inventors."

[0] [https://uwaterloo.ca/magazine/fall-2016/feature/60-years-
inn...](https://uwaterloo.ca/magazine/fall-2016/feature/60-years-innovation)

~~~
kabouseng
The irony of that is most universities make their students sign a clause
stating that all IP generated by the student for the duration of their studies
is the property of the university.

I would be very surprised if the University of Waterloo doesn't have a similar
arrangement.

Well color me impressed, the University of Waterloo indeed does not make claim
to student IP [1].

[1] [https://uwaterloo.ca/research/waterloo-commercialization-
off...](https://uwaterloo.ca/research/waterloo-commercialization-office-
watco/intellectual-property)

~~~
david38
At University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, a student owns the IP to his
inventions that are not part of funded research.

~~~
beambot
And where does the bulk of that funding come from...? ;-)

~~~
Meph504
Grants, university funded research is not the same thing as curriculum paid
for by tution and non specific funding sources.

------
walterbell
Recent thread: Five States Are Considering Bills to Legalize the 'Right to
Repair' Electronics,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13465303](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13465303)

------
MAGZine
> he Federal Circuit decided in Lexmark’s favor, ruling that a customer’s use
> of a product can be “restricted” by the patent owner with something as
> simple as a notice on disposable packaging.

Holy hell. IP law is getting out of control. How are we debating someone's
right to use the thing they legally purchased?

If you don't want someone to use your product, then don't sell it.

~~~
coldpie
This is why I am glad the TPP is dead. Whatever good it may have done in other
arenas, it exported our utterly insane IP policies, which is something I can't
support.

------
quantumpotato_
[https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-
not-d...](https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-
tracking-dots)

Lots of printing companies undermine privacy by including serial number
tracking dots.

~~~
tsomctl
Don't expect this to change, it's used to help track counterfeit money.

------
bradfa
Couldn't Lexmark just have an EULA covering the firmware inside the chip on
the toner bottle that has to be clicked through on the printer's UI when the
bottle is installed which then restricts sale of the licensed firmware in
order to prevent this?

Almost all toner these days has a chip attached, they just need to put
something inside the chip which is copyrightable rather than patentable in
order to "fix" this (from Lexmark's point of view).

~~~
gpderetta
See Sega v Accolade [1]. Violating copyright used purely to protect a monopoly
is fair use.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade)

------
wsha
It's funny to see the AARP working together with EFF and Mozilla.

~~~
woofyman
Why? The AARP foundation is involved in all areas of consumer protection since
many retired people have limited funds.

[http://www.aarp.org/aarp-foundation/our-work/legal-
advocacy/...](http://www.aarp.org/aarp-foundation/our-work/legal-advocacy/afl-
docket-consumer-and-utilities.html)

Your comment comes across as ageist.

Edit: surprising rather than funny would have been a better adjective.

~~~
michaelt

      Why?
    

It's a little surprising because a lot of advocacy groups focus their
resources on problems with a significantly disproportionate impact the people
they represent, and it's not obvious at first glance why this issue would
disproportionately impact retired people.

Coloured people and gun owners also print things out, but I don't see NAACP or
NRA putting their names on this amicus brief :)

Still, when it comes to supporting common sense amicus briefs like this one I
say the more the merrier! If NAACP and NRA want to sign the brief too, let
them :)

~~~
legodt
Holy shit, did you just say "colored people" in 2017? That's not cool,
anymore, dude

~~~
gknoy
I suspect it was a deliberate usage based on the expansion of the NAACP
acronym, rather than a term one would normally use. In _this_ case, that seems
relatively harmless.

------
kevin_thibedeau
So why do electronic devices work by one set of rules but car parts go by
another?

~~~
rickycook
are you talking about the security stuff? i think in that case it's about the
software that they assert is their IP, where this is the physical cartridge

------
rosser
How did I know this was going to be Lexmark, before I even clicked to read The
Fine Article?

Oh, right. Because Lexmark.

------
coldcode
Never knew there was a Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents.

~~~
metaphorm
for $250000 there can be a Coldcode Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents too!

[https://www.eff.org/press/releases/staff-attorney-daniel-
naz...](https://www.eff.org/press/releases/staff-attorney-daniel-nazer-
becomes-new-mark-cuban-chair-eliminate-stupid-patents)

------
witty_username
I think as long as it is communicated clearly to the consumer I don't have any
problem with whatever restrictions the company wants (purchasing is a
voluntary decision).

~~~
RobertoG
Purchasing could be a voluntary decision but, here, we are talking about
changing the definition of purchasing because it's not convenient for the
seller.

This has been already done with music and other media, by the way.

~~~
witty_username
It can be explicitly labelled as not being a "purchase".

~~~
Karunamon
That would be fine, so long as it's not sold in stores alongside other items
for purchase, and is explicitly and prominently communicated to the buyer.
There's nothing wrong with renting, so long as everyone knows it's a rental.

Somehow, I think Lexmark might have a problem with this. They want the
benefits of the rental model without the drawbacks.

