[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.