The US Supreme Court has been urged not to make it illegal to sell second-hand patented goods. Digital rights activists have begun a campaign to keep a buyer's right to sell on used goods. The part of US patent law that allows an owner of a computer or camera to sell it after use is called patent exhaustion. It restricts the …
What a ludicrous idea. I would think that a pretty high majority of almost anything other than fruit & veg has a patent on it somewhere (actually, some fruit & veg does too!).
If this is upheld then can we assume that any company involved in this ridiculous practice will then be severely taxed on the resulting waste? I mean, if I have an MP3 player and then next year I decide I want the latest pink MP3 player (white is SO last year), what do I do with my current model? If I can't sell it then all I'm left with is either giving it away (is that allowed?), sticking it in a cupboard until (well, until what?), or throwing it away.
Maybe such companies should be forced to buy back the equipment? A not unreasonable suggestion if the alternative is landfill.There's an idea that might change their minds.
what a silly sugestion
if I have somthing physicle why stop me selling it on? as long as I am not copying it. it is in the same vane that says it is a crime to repair it not just a void warrenty thing but a go to jail crime
The LG example is just pure greed, they have collected on their patent once and then want to collect on it again. I agree with most of the ideas of protecting IP (except software patents, which are getting out of hand) but if you have paid for the manufacturing costs, which include a cost for use of the patent, by extension you have paid it, companies can't go back and say I know you paid for it, but you're going to have to pay for it again because only the manufacture paid the royalties(well unless you are MS) this puts in jeopardy the whole supply chain. take a graphics card. Manafacturer makes chip (pays royalty) 2nd manufacturer puts chip onto board (pays royalty) Distributor buys boards (pays royalty) shops buys boards from distributor (pays royalty). Customer buys board from shop (pays royalty) Currently the royalties are paid upfront by the chip maker and spread across the supply chain. Any Ip holder who wants to track payment of royalties across 5 disparate entities needs their head examining.....lets see get a one off payment upfront of say £10 or spend £5 tracking and collecting £2 from 5 people.......you can't have your cake and eat it...even if you are call sara lee
Sounds like a VAT
Tax here, tax there, tax the next place.
Licenses vs. patents - oh my!
The real crux of this suit is going to hit on where a patent ends and a license begins. Furthermore, it may go so far as to trigger the determination of the legality of a license on a patented product.
I mean, let's look at the implications here. I buy a car from Ford. Contained in the car are components that are patented and licensed by Ford from various suppliers. Let's say that one of the components is the valve cam shaft, made by Ford under license from Edelbrock. I decide that the cam is perfect for use in my GM engine and swap it in.
Have I illegally deprived Ford and Edelbrock of their patent rights? Is the cam shaft licensed to me via Ford's sales agreement, or do I need to pay Edelbrock an additional fee to license the use of this device in an vehicle that is not already licensed for its use?
Worse, if I publish my findings in "Street Rod" magazine, am I guilty of piracy by encouraging others to violate the patent and licenses that are part of the use for this device?
This is where the patent exhaustion claims are going to end up. Every device, every component that contains a patent are going to be handled the same way that software is handled today - you are going to have to pay a fee to SOMEONE (probably the SAE - the automotive equivalent of RIAA?) in order to sell or reuse a component that is part of an automobile. No more shade-tree sales, no more trade-in allowances from dealers - everyone will have to pay fees to allow the licenses to be transferred. As soon as the corporate lawyers figure out that this is another source of income, you betcha that this will become the operating norm.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
If patent exhaustion is upheld by the Supremes, then Microsoft, IBM, etc. etc. will all be facing similar suits on the restrictions placed on software licenses. Unless they change the wording of the EULA to explicitly state that the purchaser is not a purchaser, but is paying a one-time LEASE for the use of the software, the term of said lease to be determined and enforced by the lessor. The same for anything that contains a patented component - you'll be leasing the use of that component for what ever duration the lessor decides.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but that's how it looks like it will play out in Peoria. Software as a Service? How about Life as as Service (LaaS).