Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 05 Jun 2017 (Monday) 10:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Supreme Court Ruled We Own our Own Property

1,590 posts
Gallery: 174 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 356
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Kansas, USA
Jun 06, 2017 23:04 |  #16

smythie wrote in post #18372077 (external link)
I don't think Adobe subscriptions are going to be affected. You are subscribing to a product to use it and in turn be eligible to receive complimentary updates while you keep your subscription current. The standalone software purchases (e.g. LR6) are more related to the content of that story but even so, I'm pretty sure the EULA would state that the software creator retains intellectual property ownership of the product.

Well, I'm pretty sure Lexmark's Patent made similar claims too. Just because a EULA or Copyright, or Patent language says one thing does not mean the SCOTUS will agree with it. This case illustrated that well.

My Gear List

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
8,573 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 1747
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 1 year ago by Left Handed Brisket.
Jun 07, 2017 02:48 |  #17​m …ts-lexmark-patent-rights/ (external link)

Sounds more like the court said a contract could be signed and enforced for a "subscription" to buy toner. But if the end user breaks the contract the manufacturer has no recourse.

PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

Capn ­ Jack
1,626 posts
Gallery: 751 photos
Likes: 3845
Joined Mar 2010
Location: NE USA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Capn Jack.
Jun 07, 2017 17:34 |  #18

Bassat wrote in post #18372747 (external link)
Perhaps the problem is granting a patent on a life form in the first place. Screw Dow, Syngenta, and Monsanto. Farming was at its most efficient (less waste) when it was done by rotating crops, critters, and rest. A small (10-100 acre) plot can be self-sustaining. That is never going to happen with 10,000 acre farms that grow the same crop every season.

Want more efficient farming? Kill the farm bill.

A 10-100 acre farm is self sustaining, but that doesn't support a guy like me who doesn't farm. Larger farms support everyone else. Bringing it back to photography, this is what it looks like not far from where I live. There aren't any 10,000 acre farms near me. Most of them are 640 acre (1 square mile). I don't know a heck of a lot about farming, but most of the farms in this picture are family owned. Where I work, a lot of people own farms and rent the land. That doesn't mean farming isn't done differently elsewhere. I know there are seed strains that aren't covered under any patent, and I'm sure the farmers would use those seeds (or save them for a future season) if it were more profitable to do so. It's not as if the seed companies won't let them choose what seeds to buy.

please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

So boring
7,711 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 289
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
Post edited over 1 year ago by Nathan. (2 edits in all)
Jun 12, 2017 16:29 |  #19

You're extrapolating from an article. This case doesn't contest who owns a patent, but rather at what do when those rights become exhausted. Basically, it is about the chain of control and, in this case, the ink cartridges went overseas where U.S. law did not apply.

This is the exhaustion doctrine which is applied to patent analysis, not copyright. The analogous legal concept in copyright is the first sale doctrine. The big question here is whether this patent analysis will necessarily make its way to copyright. That's not clear nor is it decided in this case.

If you're really curious about the primary source material, the opinion is here and you can read legal analysis of the decision. I haven't read it yet, but there's one dissenting opinion - so it would be interesting to know what the objection.

http://www.scotusblog.​com …exmark-international-inc/ (external link)

Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer. (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

Senior Member
679 posts
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Jun 12, 2017 17:36 as a reply to  @ post 18372807 |  #20

What the court said is quite specific to patents and not copyright. Copyright is an artistic/creative-based right while patent is on a specific invention or process. Lexmark already tried to use the copyright argument previously to make sure no one tried to copy their code that locked out refilled cartridges. That case was the basis for the whole "you can't copyright code" idea.

Lexmark argued that as a patent holder, they retain the rights to the patent and therefore modification of the product (refilling / editing their cartridges to have a new chip with new software on it) amounted to violating their patent rights. However, as has been pointed out, when you patent something, the law says no one else can sell your invention without compensating you. However, when you sell that product, you do not have any further rights since you've already gotten your compensation.

Canon 5D IV | Canon 5D II | XSI (Infrared modified) | SL1 | 16-35mm L f/4.0 IS | 24-70mm L f/2.8 II | 40mm f/2.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-200mm L f/4.0 IS | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | C/Y 28mm f/2.8 | Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC | C/Y 50mm f/1.7 | Zeiss 100mm MP
::SmugMug (external link)::

169 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 59
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Central PA
Jul 11, 2017 09:55 as a reply to  @ post 18372717 |  #21

Look into the details. Most seed companies either produce hybrids that produce sterile seeds or GMO seeds that also produce sterile seeds.

Steve Novakovich​m (external link)

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,313 views & 10 likes for this thread
Supreme Court Ruled We Own our Own Property
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©

Latest registered member is Bill_NY
729 guests, 337 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017 Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.