When you no longer have a use for something, you may pass it on to a family member or friend. You may choose to sell it. Ebay & others have business models built on the latter case.
Does anyone question your right to do this?
Does it make a difference if you repair it before sale?
Does it make a difference if you have the skills to return it to "as new" condition?
Does it make a difference if you buy second hand for the purpose of repair & resale?
Does it make a difference if you employ others to help with the work?
Refurbishment is frequently described as returning an item to “as new” condition, or even "remanufacturing" & in some cases, resold with new warranty. Some manufacturers claim that sale of one of their products after it has been refurbished infringes their patent(s).
Lexmark International Inc & printer cartridge refiller Impression Products Inc are fighting it out before a dozen judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Drug, biotech & medical device industry representatives, smartphone & computer manufacturers have joined in.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-02/printer-case-to-test-patent-rights-for-revamped-car-parts-drugs / Court hears appeal dispute refilled printer cartridges Silicon Valley Big Pharma Pharmaceutical companies lawsuit used printer cartridges proxy fight consumers buy refurbished resold goods car parts computers case argued dozen judges U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit dispute inkjet cartridges sold Lexmark International Inc refilled sold Impression Products Inc. Lexmark infringe infringed infringing patents cartridges paid once patented inventions cartridges were first sold exhausted its patent rights multifront effort scale back manufacturer’s rights control who repairs refurbishes products after sale Jacob Kramer antitrust lawyer Bryan Cave Washington not involved case drug biotech medical device industries representing Pfizer Inc Johnson & Johnson filing briefs restrictions resale products safety reasons smartphone computer manufacturers Google Inc Samsung Electronics Co arguing limits confusion paid supply chain complex electronics refurbished goods appeal consumers lower prices more choices innovation Kramer case U.S. US overseas trial judge Ohio agreed argument cartridges initially sold U.S. sold overseas refurbished cartridges effectively deemed new product infringed U.S. patent rights appealing argument lost closely held company Charleston West Virginia appeal 2013 Supreme Court decision allowed resale copyrighted materials initially sold abroad no difference between patent and copyright law argue drugmakers ruling in favor overseas sales issue open the door firms buying cheaper medicines overseas shipping U.S. Government price controls economic issues lower costs other countries HIV medicines Circuit Judge Pauline Newman questioned drugmakers lose their rights selling medicines HIV drugs court should overturn older ruling medical device makers restrict use products single use restrictions sales contracts regulatory means resorting patent law lawyer Edward O’Connor Avyno Law Encino California sell it hearing technology companies Google Intel Corp Samsung LG Electronics Inc drug maker’s concerns U.S.Food and Drug Administration strict rules limiting re-importation medicines manufacturer electronics companies components modern devices mobile phones computers patent owner multiple bites at the same royalty apple complicate negotiations higher prices consumers patent exhaustion sale patent rights exhausted Andrew Pincus Mayer Brown Washington arguing computer companies retailers victory Impression boon $318.2 billion after-market after market refurbished auto parts industry re-sterilizes repairs orthopedic devices Lexington Kentucky Lexmark printer companies makers razors sells product low cost relies sale essential replacement parts ink cartridges blades profit business model at stake Lexmark program charges less money agree return used cartridges judge unenforceable medical device manufacturers limits single use products purchasers chose bundle of rights buy Lexmark lawyer Constantine Trela Sidley Austin Chicago user right reuse cartridge buy it printers biotechnology crop science industries restrict use inventions recoup billions dollars research new medicines plants printer cartridges software smartphones Barbara Fiacco Foley Hoag Boston biotech agriculture companies Federal Circuit heard case argue lawyers representing arguments Obama administration decision Lexmark International Inc. v. Impression Products Inc Patent Law Lexmark International Inc Tech Alphabet Inc Samsung Electronics Co Ltd Washington Law U.S. Court of Appeals Products Inc Pfizer Inc /
No comments:
Post a Comment