Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 1
    Perhaps you ought to distinguish between a purchaser of the book, vs someone casually browsing it in a bookstore or library. Because I presume that would affect any answer... Commented May 31 at 16:32
  • Ever Heard the term shrinkwrap? Like on toner cartridges?
    – Trish
    Commented May 31 at 16:52
  • @Trish I believe the toner cartridge shrinkwrap licenses revolved around the software on the metering/authentication chips that are part of the cartridge, as this avoided patent exhaustion doctrine. It was an explicit attempt to turn it into a software licensing issue.
    – user71659
    Commented May 31 at 19:19
  • @user71659 No, It was about customers being barred from giving cartridges to refillers, and they shed the wrong party, the refiller, not the breaching customers.
    – Trish
    Commented Jun 1 at 6:31
  • @Trish Nope, the central argument by Lexmark was software licensing, to avoid the limitations of patent exhaustion and the fact the cartridges were sold and the user had clear title.
    – user71659
    Commented Jun 1 at 17:52