INKJET CTG REFILLS VIOLATE U.S LAWS ?

[Anonymous]

Inkjet Cartridge Refills Violate U.S. Law?
In a ruling with wide
implications, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court last week ruled that refilling
a “single use only” Lexmark printer cartridge violates U.S. contract
and patent law.
Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that
opening an inkjet cartridge labelled “single use only” creates an
enforceable contract between the customer and the cartridge
manufacturer, and that refilling the cartridge could constitute a
violation of contract and patent law.

The decision comes in a case between printer and cartridge manufacturer
Lexmark and the Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association (ACRA),
and appears to be an extension of the so-called “shrinkwrap license”
which appeared on software products to patented goods available for
sale. By opening the product, customers are agreeing to the single-use
terms specified by the manufacturer. If they then turn that product
over to another party-such as a cartridge remanufacturer-they are
violating that agreement and would be subject to action under contract
and patent law. Moreover, companies which offer to remanufacture or
enable customers to re-use such products in ways prohibited by the
customer agreement could be subject to legal action for inducing
customers to violate patent and contract law.

Lexmark previously tried to shut down inkjet cartridge remanufacturers
using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA); the U.S. Sixth
Circuit court did not side with Lexmark, specifically finding the DMCA
could not be used to create monopolies on manufactured goods.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling could conceivably open the door to many
different types of on-box contracts consumers tacitly accept by opening
the package of a patented product. Agreements could forbid or restrict
or forbid repair, alteration, resale, or certain applications of the
products. For instance, a contact could specify that a product could
only be serviced by the manufacturer, could not be sold by the
customer, or could not be modified by the customer or a third party.

If the ruling stands, the implications could be widespread.
Manufacturers could seek to restrict what customers can do with
patented products, both to make certain types of activities illegal
(e.g., developing and selling modifications to video game systems, for
instance) or lock in revenue streams by preventing third parties from
refurbishing, repairing, or upgrading products (e.g., printer
cartridges, adding storage capacity, selling systems on eBay, etc.

[Author]

September 9, 2005 at 10:25 AM