Patent law issues

[BTGBullseye]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/federal-circuit-sticks-its-guns-patent-owners-can-prevent-you-owning-anything

 

Legally, a laptop manufacturer could put a label on on the outside of your laptop that said "1 use only", and if you used the laptop more than once, you are liable in a lawsuit. Please discuss.

[Zelpa]

warranty void if looked at

[BTGBullseye]

warranty void if looked at

100% perfectly legal.

[Fric]

That does not make any sense tbh... Why would you buy a product that has single use only, if you can buy a competitor's product without it? Its totally impractical and shooting yourself in the foot as a business owner...

[Seattleite]

That does not make any sense tbh... Why would you buy a product that has single use only, if you can buy a competitor's product without it? Its totally impractical and shooting yourself in the foot as a business owner...

 

The goal is to make themselves not liable for damages to the computer, so the warranty never needs to be enforced, at all, ever.

[Fric]

That does not make any sense tbh... Why would you buy a product that has single use only, if you can buy a competitor's product without it? Its totally impractical and shooting yourself in the foot as a business owner...

 

The goal is to make themselves not liable for damages to the computer, so the warranty never needs to be enforced, at all, ever.

 

My point still stands - unless for some miracle (or a conspiracy) every manufacturer in the world agrees to do that, a competitor will use this as an advantage: "hey don't buy their product because they do not provide any service for it, but we do." Trying to do something like this is just putting yourself at the disadvantage over other manufacturers/sellers.

[Seattleite]

That does not make any sense tbh... Why would you buy a product that has single use only, if you can buy a competitor's product without it? Its totally impractical and shooting yourself in the foot as a business owner...

 

The goal is to make themselves not liable for damages to the computer, so the warranty never needs to be enforced, at all, ever.

 

My point still stands - unless for some miracle (or a conspiracy) every manufacturer in the world agrees to do that, a competitor will use this as an advantage: "hey don't buy their product because they do not provide any service for it, but we do." Trying to do something like this is just putting yourself at the disadvantage over other manufacturers/sellers.

 

You're assuming three patent lunacies.

 

1. That they would need to make such a thing overt, instead of burying it under so much fine print that they already have your money by the time you find out.

 

2. That companies won't band together when they all stand to profit at our expense. (See group lobbying, price fixing and planned obsolescence for great examples.)

 

3. That the overwhelming power of advertisement and lack of better options don't allow them to do whatever the fuck they want and still have an expectation that we'll buy their product anyway. See above examples of things we all know they do.