EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

02.23.16

Lexmark Muestra Patentes Contra los Intereses Públicos y Contra la Competencia

Posted in America, Patents at 2:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Original/English

Publicado en America, Patents at 8:37 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ink
“Si fuera a llenar el tanque de su coche con tinta de Hewlett-Packard o Lexmark, le costaría $ 100,000,” dijo Gerald Chamales, presidente de Rhinotek Computer Products, un fabricante de cartuchos de tinta y tóner de Carson (Los Angeles County), que son compatibles con las impresoras de marca. “Si llenase una piscina olímpica con tinta de los cartuchos de inyección de tinta HP o Lexmark, le costaría $ 5.9 mil millones con B.” – See original article

Sumario: Revisión del cubrimiento de prensa acerca del caso de patentes de Lexmark, donde el grotesco SOBREPRECIO de la tinta fue defendido por el Circuito Federal

LAS noticias han sido dominadas hasta cierto grado por reportajes acerca del Circuito Federan haciendo un deservicio a la sociedad (de nuevo).

Como la EFF (Fundación De Frontera Electrónica) lo puso esta semana: “El Dictámen del Circuito Federal da privilegios a los dueños de patentes en vez de a los consumidores en los productos que ellos compran¨

“El Dictámen del Circuito Federal da privilegios a los dueños de patentes en vez de a los consumidores, y asegura incluso menos competencia en el mercado de reventas.”
      –EFF
Sin duda, muchas firmas y sitios de abogados estan escribiendo acerca de esto ahora mismo, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].

Vale la pena notar el hecho que firmas de abogados escribieron 10 veces más artículos que otros sitios de noticias generales (o sitios de tecnología) acerca de este caso, e.g. [1, 2]. Mucha gente no entiende patentes tampoco los reporteros. Ellos usarían frases como ¨patentes de inventos¨ o ¨hacer patentes¨. La propaganda trabaja para ellos y no piensan fuera de ella.

“En este caso, el tribunal sostuvo que este tipo de restricción es aplicable para Lexmark, pero sólo porque el producto de Lexmark está protegida por derechos de patentes.”
      –Dennis Crouch
Aquí esta el mejor reportaje que hemos encontrado en esta materia (hasta ahora). TechDirt, que ha cubierto esta materia por más de una década (yendo atras hasta 2004 si no antes), escribió: ¨si tu fallas bloquear la competencia de una manera, aparentemente tu puedes hacerlo de otra -y enventualmentee terminarás en la Corte de Apelaciones del Distrito Federal, quienes enredarán todo y matarán a la competencia por tí. La compañía de printers Lexmark ha estado en guerra contra distribuidores alternativos de tinta por más de una década. Como estarán enterados tinta para impresoras es vergonzósamente CARÍSIMA, con tal estimado (de hace más de una década) de que en order de llenar una píscina olimpica con ella, te costaría $5.9 BILLIONS (si con ¨b¨) en la caja registradora de tu tienda local. Los fabricantes de impresoras notablemente han tomado un ¨regalo de impresora y ´baratísimas´ de bajo costo, y compensarla con seriamente sobretasados precios por tinta en su negocio. Esta clase de negocio trabaja hasta que alguién sale y trata de vender tinta más barata.¨

Suficientemente decir este caso es acerca de coservar los precios artificialmente CAROS (muchísimos mas altos en magnitud que los costos de producción). Una respuesta publicada por Dennis Crouch dijo: ¨Me sorprendió la plena decisión del Circuito Federal en el caso Lexmark de re-afirmar Mallingckrodt – DAR AL VENDEDOR EL PODER DE BLOQUEAR LA FUTURA REVENTA Y REUSO DE UN PRODUCTO PATENTADO. Mi sorpresa se basa en la larga tradición de la ley de propiedad Americana de promover el flujo libre de comercio al rechazar servidumbres que limitan la alienación e reuso de bienes. Para ser claro, las cortes han enforzado contractos entre partidos voluntarios para este fin, pero esas mismas cortes han rechazado permitir convenios restrictivos para aferrarse al bien y bloquear cualquier subsequente comprador. Aqui, la corte sostuvo que este tipo de restricción es enforzable por Lexmark, pero sólo por que es un producto Lexmark cubierto por derechos de patentes.

“Recuerde que CAFC es responsable de muchas otras decisiones igualmente sin tacto.”No fue la primera vez que el blog de Crouch cubrió este caso en días reciéntes (mencionamos esto unas pocas veces en los posts de la semana pasada). Básicamente, Lexmark TUERCE Y DOBLA LA LAY POR PRECIO ARREGLADO/ALZA DE PRECIOS. Otras compañías como HP, sin duda se beneficiarían de esto a expensas del público. Para citar el blog de Crouch: ¨Las presumpciones son de alguna importancia para aquellos operando en el terreno. Aquí la Corte de los Estados Unidos presumirá que las ventas de un producto no acaban con los derechos de una patente estadounidense. Esto para un importador significa que debe obtener un permiso/licensia de esos derechos para evitar querellas (asumiendo un válida así como una patente infringida). Por supuesto, que la licensia puede ser implícita de esos derechos para evitar querellas proveyendo noticias del intento importador. En adición, dependiendo del lugar de ventas, UCC 2-312 (o su equivalente foránea) puede crear un presumpución de licensia dependiendo de la situación.¨

Cuando leyes son promulgadas para protejer modelos de ventas o a largas corporaciones a expensas del público, ¿Son esas leyes legítimas? ¿No deberíamos sentirnos libres de desafiarlas o mejor aún, ponernos en desobediencia civil? Recuérden que la CAFC es responsable por muchas otras decisiones sin tacto. También fue la CAFC LA QUE COMENZÓ LAS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE, NO SÓLO EN LOS eSTADOS uNIDOS SINO EN TODO EL MUNDO. En el pasado hemos mostrado evidencia de corrupción institucional dentro de la CAFC.

“Cínico es el hombre que conoce el precio de todo y el valor de nada.”

Oscar Wilde

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Links 21/4/2018: Linux 4.9.95, FFmpeg 4.0, OpenBSD Foundation 2018 Fundraising Campaign

    Links for the day



  2. As USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu Gives Three Months for Public Comments on 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Software Patenting Impacted)

    Weeks after starting his job as head of the US patent office, to our regret but not to our surprise, Iancu asks whether to limit examiners' ability to reject abstract patent applications citing 35 U.S.C. § 101 (relates to Alice and Mayo)



  3. In Keith Raniere v Microsoft Both Sides Are Evil But for Different Reasons

    Billing for patent lawyers reveals an abusive strategy from Microsoft, which responded to abusive patent litigation (something which Microsoft too has done for well over a decade)



  4. Links 20/4/2018: Atom 1.26, MySQL 8.0

    Links for the day



  5. Links 19/4/2018: Mesa 17.3.9 and 18.0.1, Trisquel 8.0 LTS Flidas, Elections for openSUSE Board

    Links for the day



  6. The Patent Microcosm, Patent Trolls and Their Pressure Groups Incite a USPTO Director Against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Section 101/Alice

    As one might expect, the patent extremists continue their witch-hunt and constant manipulation of USPTO officials, whom they hope to compel to become patent extremists themselves (otherwise those officials are defamed, typically until they're fired or decide to resign)



  7. Microsoft's Lobbying for FRAND Pays Off as Microsoft-Connected Patent Troll Conversant (Formerly MOSAID) Goes After Android OEMs in Europe

    The FRAND (or SEP) lobby seems to have caused a lot of monopolistic patent lawsuits; this mostly affects Linux-powered platforms such as Android, Tizen and webOS and there are new legal actions from Microsoft-connected patent trolls



  8. To Understand Why People Say That Lawyers are Liars Look No Further Than Misleading Promotion of Software Patents

    Some of the latest misleading claims from the patent microcosm, which is only interested in lots and lots of patents (its bread and butter is monopolies after all) irrespective of their merit, quality, and desirability



  9. When News About the EPO is Dominated by Sponsored 'Reports' and Press Releases Because Publishers Are Afraid of (or Bribed by) the EPO

    The lack of curiosity and genuine journalism in Europe may mean that serious abuses (if not corruption) will go unreported



  10. The Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Complain That They Are Understaffed, Not Just Lacking the Independence They Depend on

    The Boards of Appeal have released a report and once again they openly complain that they're unable to do their job properly, i.e. patent quality cannot be assured



  11. Links 18/4/2018: New Fedora 27 ISOs, Nextcloud Wins German Government Contract

    Links for the day



  12. Guest Post: Responding to Your Recent Posting “The European Patent Office Will Never Hold Its Destroyers Accountable”

    In France, where Battistelli does not enjoy diplomatic immunity, he can be held accountable like his "padrone" recently was



  13. The EPO in 2018: Partnering With Saudi Arabia and Cambodia (With Zero European Patents)

    The EPO's status in the world has declined to the point where former French colonies and countries with zero European Patents are hailed as "success stories" for Battistelli



  14. For Samsung and Apple the Biggest Threat Has Become Patent Trolls and Aggressors in China and the Eastern District of Texas, Not Each Other

    The latest stories about two of the world's largest phone OEMs, both of which find themselves subjected to a heavy barrage of patent lawsuits and even embargoes; Samsung has meanwhile obtained an antisuit injunction against Huawei



  15. The EPO Continues to Lie About Patent Quality Whilst Openly Promoting Software Patents, Even Outside Europe

    EPO patent quality continues to sink while EPO management lies about it and software patents are openly being promoted/advocatedEPO patent quality continues to sink while EPO management lies about it (the article above is new) and software patents are openly being promoted/advocated



  16. SCOTUS on WesternGeco v Ion Geophysical Almost Done; Will Oil States Decision Affirm the PTAB's Quality Assurance (IPRs) Soon?

    Ahead of WesternGeco and Oil States, following oral proceedings, it's expected that the highest court in the United States will deliver more blows to patent maximalism



  17. Links 17/4/2018: Linux 5.x Plans and Microsoft's 'Embrace'

    Links for the day



  18. The European Patent Office (EPO) Grants Patents in Error, Insiders Are Complaining That It's the Management's Fault

    The EPO has languished to the point where patents are granted in error, examiners aren't happy, and the resultant chaos benefits no-one but lawyers and patent trolls



  19. The European Patent Office Will Never Hold Its Destroyers Accountable

    With only one in seven EPO stakeholders believing that Battistelli's pick (António Campinos) will turn things around for the better, it certainly does not seem like people are happy and there's no real hope that Battistelli will ever be held accountable for his abuses after his immunity expires



  20. With Liars Like These...

    The European Patent Office continues to lie about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) amongst other things, still revealing its reluctance to say anything which is truthful or work to repair the damage caused by Benoît Battistelli



  21. Links 16/4/2018: Linux 4.17 RC 1, Mesa 18.0.1 RC, GNOME 3.28.1

    Links for the day



  22. IAM, Patently-O and Watchtroll (the Patent Trolls' Lobby) Try to Stop Patent Oppositions/Petitions (PTAB)

    In spite of fee hikes, introduced by Iancu's interim predecessor, petitions (IPRs) at the PTAB continue to grow in number and the patent maximalists are losing their minds over it



  23. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is Ending Software Patents One Patent at a Time

    At an accelerating pace and with growing determination, PTAB (part of AIA) crushes patent trolls and software patents; the statistics and latest stories speak for themselves



  24. Academics and Think Tanks for Patent Maximalism

    Right-wing think tanks and impressionable academics continue to lobby for patent maximalism, rarely revealing the funding sources and motivations; in reality, however, such maximalism mainly helps large (already-wealthy) corporations, monopolists, and law firms



  25. Killing Patent Quality and Encouraging 'Covert' Software Patents Using the Buzzwords Du Jour

    The epidemic of buzzwords and/or hype waves that are being exploited to dodge or bypass patent scope/limitations, as seen in Europe and the US these days



  26. Crisis of Quality at the EPO Extends to Staff (Notably Examiners) and Management as Institutional Integrity is Severely Compromised

    A rather pessimistic but likely realistic outlook for the European Patent Office (EPO), which seems unable to attract the sort of staff it attracted for a number of decades



  27. The 'Blockchaining' of Software Patents (to Dodge the Rules/Guidelines) Now Coming to Europe

    A lot of software patents are being declared invalid (or not granted in the first place); having said that, using all sorts of hype waves (like calling databases “blockchains”) firms and individuals manage to still be granted software patents and sometimes patent trolls hoard these



  28. Links 14/4/2018: Wine 3.6, KDE Elisa 0.1

    Links for the day



  29. East Asia Should Have Adopted the Patent Strategy of South Asia, Notably India

    China seems to be so interested in patent maximalism that it has lost sight of the effect on foreign investment, e.g. US/European/Taiwanese/Japanese/Korean firms operating/manufacturing in mainland China



  30. Samsung is the 'New IBM', Sans the Trolling With Patents

    The 'relic' company, IBM, loses its patent leadership (as measured using some yardstick) to Samsung, a company which is relatively calm when it comes to patent activity (unless/only when sued, as happens a lot nowadays)


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts