NationStates Jolt Archive

What’s that, you ask? Evidently, it’s when you ignore the terms written on the side of Lexmark printer cartridge box, refilling the cartridge with ink even when the company has designated it “single use only.” According to the Ninth Circuit ruling [PDF] this week in ACRA v. Lexmark, opening the package means you agree to Lexmark’s wishes. And if you break that agreement, you could face claims under contract and patent law.

As someone who not only fills her own printer ink cartridges - and yes, I use a Lexmark printer and ink - and fills other people's ink cartridges, I find it ludicrous that "opening a printer cartridge" is now being considered a binding legal agreement between you and Lexmark.

Since when did an inanimate object with terms and conditions written in tiny print on the side become legally binding? Is that really what the world is coming to?

So, technically, this ruling now forces you to be legally liable to Lexmark once you purchase the ink cartridge product... not when you read the fine print after the fact. If you own a Lexmark printer, you don't have many choices on what type of ink you use, since their cartridges are made for their printers. Since not many people are going to be aware of this, you're going to be legally held to a standard you had no clue about for the most part. That's the most ass-backwards logic I've heard of in quite some time, and I've heard a lot of ass-backwards logic in my 20 short years on planet Earth.

Source: Corante (http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/09/02/the_latest_ip_crime_boxwrap_patent_infringement.php)

Ignore it. This type of contract is virtually unenforceable, along with the "by opening this box you agree to the licence" on software. I only qualify this as 'virtually' as no one seems to have ever actually contested such a contract - it never goes that far, strangly enough because such cases are usually settled out of court.

Face it, Its sicko Corporatism at its worst.

Thankfully, I live in a country that would strike that down. The High Court of Australia has ruled that because a person must be aware of a contract they aggree to prior to it being enforced, that sneaking contracts onto products like that is social contract and not enforcable.

(looking for source people)

Thankfully, I live in a country that would strike that down. The High Court of Australia has ruled that because a person must be aware of a contract they aggree to prior to it being enforced, that sneaking contracts onto products like that is social contract and not enforcable.

(looking for source people)
The same is true in Ireland and England. You also have to make them aware of the contract before they purchase the product. Failure to do so means there is no contract.

And people say that the EU is good for nothing :rolleyes:
That is ILLEGAL over here. All cartridges must be refillable. As you may have noticed, printing ink is THE most expensive liquid on earth, and that's how printer companies make money. They sell ink. In fact, until the EU adopted legislation, it was usually cheaper to buy a new printer than new ink cartridges.

As someone who not only fills her own printer ink cartridges - and yes, I use a Lexmark printer and ink - and fills other people's ink cartridges, I find it ludicrous that "opening a printer cartridge" is now being considered a binding legal agreement between you and Lexmark.

Since when did an inanimate object with terms and conditions written in tiny print on the side become legally binding? Is that really what the world is coming to?

So, technically, this ruling now forces you to be legally liable to Lexmark once you purchase the ink cartridge product... not when you read the fine print after the fact. If you own a Lexmark printer, you don't have many choices on what type of ink you use, since their cartridges are made for their printers. Since not many people are going to be aware of this, you're going to be legally held to a standard you had no clue about for the most part. That's the most ass-backwards logic I've heard of in quite some time, and I've heard a lot of ass-backwards logic in my 20 short years on planet Earth.

Source: Corante (http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/09/02/the_latest_ip_crime_boxwrap_patent_infringement.php)


The solution, it seems to me, is to buy third party cartidges designed to work with said cartridges and refill those instead. A double deuce to the stealth barb.

So....what happens if I go into Office Depot, and write on the bottom of all the ink cartridge boxes "You are now [my name]'s slave for 5 years, by opening this box you agree to obey all commands."
Hmmm....

And people say that the EU is good for nothing :rolleyes:
That is ILLEGAL over here. All cartridges must be refillable. As you may have noticed, printing ink is THE most expensive liquid on earth, and that's how printer companies make money. They sell ink. In fact, until the EU adopted legislation, it was usually cheaper to buy a new printer than new ink cartridges.
Christ... But seriously in any other modern democracy a contract cannot excist without someone's prior concent. It goes against the most basic principles of civil law.

So....what happens if I go into Office Depot, and write on the bottom of all the ink cartridge boxes "You are now [my name]'s slave for 5 years, by opening this box you agree to obey all commands."
Hmmm....
In the US? You'd undo the Emancipation Proclaimation...

OK, the Lexmark example is a little extreme, and probably unenforceable, but there's a more general trend of intellectual property law being used for what in any normal economy would be considered completely contrary to free trade.

http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/

Dman shtty links. Go to the one called Apple of Forbidden knowledge if you can be bothered to follow this up.

As someone who not only fills her own printer ink cartridges - and yes, I use a Lexmark printer and ink - and fills other people's ink cartridges, I find it ludicrous that "opening a printer cartridge" is now being considered a binding legal agreement between you and Lexmark.

Actually, I believe this ruling means that a remanufacturer cannot take a product, refurbish it and then sell it as their own. The law suit assumes that the end user gives or sells the expired product to a third party who then refurbishes the product and resells it. I read no language that says you cannot refill your "single use" cartridge.

I imagine that's the only instance in which they'd enforce it, but it's still basically anti-competitive. It comes down to a company feeling that they can mae more money on single-use cartridges than on refillable ones, and trying to stop the market finding a way around their deliberate inefficiency. Intellectual Property law pretty much ties the invisible hand behind the invisible back.

I imagine that's the only instance in which they'd enforce it, but it's still basically anti-competitive. It comes down to a company feeling that they can mae more money on single-use cartridges than on refillable ones, and trying to stop the market finding a way around their deliberate inefficiency. Intellectual Property law pretty much ties the invisible hand behind the invisible back.normally tho, the used containers are shipped back to the company to be refilled. the retail stores that collect the old ink cartridges get credit for sending em back.

so you buying those refill ink sets and refilling your own is the same thing, only no middleman...


and more mess if you don't know what you're doing. :D

I find it sneaky to put a contract on the side of a box, but Lexmark technically has a point. It's not going to be enforced to any great degree, of course, so so unless you have some objection to breaking the law, go forth.

normally tho, the used containers are shipped back to the company to be refilled. the retail stores that collect the old ink cartridges get credit for sending em back.

so you buying those refill ink sets and refilling your own is the same thing, only no middleman...


and more mess if you don't know what you're doing. :D

Still seems to me to be pushing prices up.

I've got two Canon printers - an old Canon BJC-210 and a newer USB one. The newer one has small need-surgery-to refill cartridges while the BJC-210 is very easy to refill (and more capacity). The recent trend is towards those small ones.

None of you bothered to look at the actual 9th Circuit case (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ACRA_v_Lexmark/ACRA_v_Lexmark_9th_circuit_ruling.pdf) before getting hysterical.


Appellant Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association (“ACRA”), an association of wholesalers that sell remanufactured printer cartridges, appeals the grant of summary judgment to cartridge-maker Lexmark on claims that Lexmark engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices in violation of California law. The dispute arises from Lexmark’s advertising of its “Prebate Prebate” program, under which it gives purchasers an upfront discount in exchange for their agreement to return the empty cartridge to Lexmark for remanufacturing — a form of post-sale restriction on reuse. ACRA claims that Lexmark’s advertising and promotional materials mislead customers into thinking the post-sale restriction is enforceable and that they actually receive a discounted price for the special cartridges. We agree with the district court that ACRA has not offered evidence that Lexmark’s advertisements constitute deceptive or unfair business practices and affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Lexmark.

1. Lexmark offers some cartridges at an expressly lower price if you agree to return them.

2. Whether or not the contract is valid was not even at issue in the case.

So, almost everything said above about the case is untrue and inapposite.

Doesn't seem to invalidate my point, which was that the patent system gives companies far more control of their products than should be allowed on competitve markets. Can't speak for anyone else.

None of you bothered to look at the actual 9th Circuit case (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ACRA_v_Lexmark/ACRA_v_Lexmark_9th_circuit_ruling.pdf) before getting hysterical.




1. Lexmark offers some cartridges at an expressly lower price if you agree to return them.

2. Whether or not the contract is valid was not even at issue in the case.

So, almost everything said above about the case is untrue and inapposite.
Technically, Lexmark offers some cartridges to the Retail store at lower prices if the store agrees to return them.

and really, that isn't stopping a 3rd company from designing and selling Ink cartridges that just so happen to fit Lexmark printers, as well as offering refilling services for that.

Lexmark can set up whatever it deems necessary to protect their business. however, anyone can be creative and work around that agreement. They just have to be careful about breaking the law.

then there is the enforceability of that licencing agreement...

Got a question for you Cat-tribe, does the Agreement constitue a Contract between company and person who opens box?

And people say that the EU is good for nothing :rolleyes:
That is ILLEGAL over here. All cartridges must be refillable. As you may have noticed, printing ink is THE most expensive liquid on earth, and that's how printer companies make money. They sell ink. In fact, until the EU adopted legislation, it was usually cheaper to buy a new printer than new ink cartridges.
Ninth circuit decisions are not that legally binding in the US either. I'd wait until this gets higher up before commenting.