Interesting reading. They seem to make a big deal out of the "refurbish or
repair" distinction. What came to mind to me, though, was that a patent
grants the patentholder the right to exclude others from the right to
make, USE, import, and sell the patented device. The "sale" of an item is
a grant of a license to use the item. If that license restricts the use to
"single use" (whether that be a printer ink cartridge or a medical
device), it seems like there should be some right to enforce that license
term. If the purchaser does not wish to abide by that license term, he/she
can not make the purchase. It SEEMS that even if you buy an invention from
the inventor, you do not have the right to USE it unless the inventor also
grants you that right.

Harold


> Strangely fascinating
>
>         http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/98/01/026.html
>
> This specifically relates to the refurbishment of medical equipment or
> of components of such which are intended for single use or for
> disposal when used/full etc. It seems to have applicability to other
> areas such as inkjet or laser printer cartridge clones, or the
> refilling thereof and will have even wider application to all sorts of
> products which have parts that are expended. Especially applicable to
> "trojan horse" products where the product is almost given away with
> profits expected to be made on consumables.
>
> An interesting and useful read for anyone liable to have any interest
> in these areas.
>
> Comment is made on ways to legally protect products, and on ways to
> circumvent various protections.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>


-- 
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist