[yladiz]

Here is the ruling if anyone is interested (the opinion starts on page 6): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf

I think this article is taking what the ruling says and bringing it a bit far. Essentially this suit was about Lexmark suing a "remanufacturer", Impression Products, Inc., that takes used ink cartridges and refills them, instead of the consumer returning them to Lexmark, for parent infringement (I think in this specific case, the remanufacturer was refilling toner cartridges). Impression Products won this case, and the suit says that patent rights end once the cartridge is sold to a consumer.

I can see that this could be a landmark case in the future when one of those Right-To-Repair laws (like the one in Nebraska(?)) if the specific reason manufacturers don't want to let consumers repair their own products is due to patent issues, but more broadly I don't think it covers the entirety of the "right to repair". That case might use this as a precedent, but it will still need to be decided in a court.

[jaredklewis]

This case rules on patents because the case before them was about patents. But for me, when I read the decision I got sense that the court felt the pendulum had swung too far away from consumers, and that things need to be balanced out with a stronger view of the first sale doctrine.

Given this change in thinking, I am optimistic future cases dealing with non-patent issues will yield similar results.

[yladiz]

Maybe, but this suit rules only on patents and you can't infer beyond that. Take, for example, this line in the case (on page 10, under pp II A):

> The single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under contract law...

IANAL, but this makes me think that the case would only be applied to patent issues, because it doesn't rule about anything concerning contracts. That kind of suit will have to come later.

[jaredklewis]

Sure I don't dispute that it only rules on patent issues. But, I think it is often possible to get a sense of how the court will rule on future decisions by reading their past rulings to get a sense of their thinking. And while there is a lot to be said for each justice's individual personality, on this issue they were unanimous.

My reading of the decision was that the court wasn't just clarifying the bounds of patent law, with no real interest in the consumer perspective. I felt a court that was concerned about the way consumer rights are heading.

If companies start spamming the public with grabby adhesion contracts for everyday purchases, I think the court is going to be very concerned.

Of course, this is just my intuition and reading. We won't know for sure until the next consumer rights case, but I am optimistic.

[slededit]

You're right - without fixing the copyright loop hole you don't have the right to repair things with software lock outs.

[yladiz]

I do think that eventually you will be able to buy the parts for repairing your phone from the manufacturer (how that system will be set up, I'm not sure) but I would imagine that software locks would also be tied to that. As in, the software won't be able to tie your specific display or motherboard to your phone and not let you repair them. I'm actually curious about how the warranty and insurance will work in that case, since currently if you attempt to open your device its warranty is voided. I'm guessing that if you damage it due to your own repair attempt, you can have the manufacturer repair it but you will pay full price (insurance wouldn't cover it).

[URSpider94]

For any of this to happen, there would have to be some serious changes in either sentiment of device makers or the legal environment. And, honestly, the number of people who want to repair their own phone is basically zero.

Where I live, there are dozens of shops that can replace just about any part of your iPhone, except the secure elements (fingerprint sensor). They don't seem to have trouble getting parts. So really we are taking about a mechanism for consumers to buy OEM parts one-off. I don't see that happening.

[throwaway91111]

The issue is in defining sales; for instance, John Deere licenses the software to their vehicles.