The US newspaper’s editorial board believes “American patent law should not be used to prevent consumers from reselling, altering or fixing technology products”, and Google filed a supporting document.
The newspaper’s editorial discusses Lexmark and US remanufacturer Impression Products’ case, in which the latter is trying to contest the OEM’s use of US patent law to restrict reuse of empty cartridges.
The New York Times piece notes that US patent law “should not be used to prevent consumers from reselling, altering or fixing technology products”, and highlights that the case could “clearly establish this principle”. It points out that the case “raises important questions about the reach of American patent law”, and “how much control a manufacturer can exert after its products have been lawfully sold”.
If Lexmark won, producers could “use patent law to dictate” how patented goods “are used, changed or resold”, and “place restrictions on international trade”. The paper’s view is that “that makes no sense, especially in a world where technology products and components are brought and sold numerous times”, and that this is “why the court should rule in favour of Impression”.
It adds that if OEMs “want to restrict how their products are used, they can lease their goods or sign contracts with business customers”, but using patent law to do this “is fraught with problems”, noting it believes “there is no reason patent owners should be allowed to demand royalties from second or third owners of products who may be unaware of any restrictions”.
Google, Intel and Dell have all filed documents “in support of Impression”, helping the remanufacturer to argue “patent law should not be used to limit the resale of goods and restrict international trade”. Other organisations supporting Impression include public interest groups Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, while pharmaceutical and medical companies, alongside the ISC, have supported Lexmark.
The New York Times concludes that “to encourage innovation, the government gives inventors patents on their creations for a limited time. But patents should not give the manufacturer indefinite control over the product after it has been sold”.