Latest Supreme Court ruling and POSSIBLE answer to DJI restrictions ?

[KD8ICQ]

Gentleman, hot off the presses, this latest development may just be what were looking for in the way of stopping drone manufacturers from, in essence, controlling OUR aircrafts.

This article was posted on Drone U's Facebook page talking about a decision made by the United States Supreme Court dealing with companies and the legality of controlling devices after being purchased. Hopefully this will spell a WIN for us in the drone community as well.

Facebook post and full article linked below:


Drone U Post:

Upset that DJI can control the drone YOU bought?

Not anymore Drone Manufacturers... Thanks to the United State Supreme Court, manufacturers cannot control what you do with a product after you purchase the product. They cannot control how you use the product or how you fix the product.

In this monumental case, John Roberts stated, "A purchaser has the right to use, sell, or import an item because those are the rights that come along with ownership, not because it purchased authority to engage in those practices from the patentee."




Supreme Court Briefing:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I didn't read the entire ruling but I'd be interested to see the connection between ink cartridges and drone NFZ limits.

 

[mark_t]

I see nothing in this that applies to the DJI situation, I'm happy to be proved wrong, but it just isn't there as far as I can see...

To expand on this, the closest analogy to the DJI situation would be if Lexmark had gone after the end-users of their cartridges under contract law and the Supreme Court noted that this was something they could have done, but they didn't.

Instead Lexmark tried to use Patent law to go after the re-manufacturers and that is what failed.

If DJI attempted to say that someone buying a 2nd-hand DJI drone could not make alterations to it and then resell it due to their patents then this case would be on point, but absent that it just isn't...

 

[Nikon1]

It looks tangential to DJI, but still may prove very applicable.

Very interesting post, Thank You!

 

[tcope]

Someone posted this in their Facebook page... they must be correct. It's not like _anyone_ can just create a FB page and say anything they want.

As mentioned above, the case linked to has _nothing_ to do with what was mentioned. It basically only states that a person can alter a product that is protected by a patented. To apply this ruling to the Mavic, DJI has to allow other people to modify their Mavics as they want. The ruling states, once a patented item is sold, it's right to a patent on that item expires. This allows the person to then modify the item themselves (the patent on the design still exists).

It says _nothing_ about the obligation of the patent holder not to modify software in the device itself.

 

[KD8ICQ]

Someone posted this in their Facebook page... they must be correct. It's not like _anyone_ can just create a FB page and say anything they want.

As mentioned above, the case linked to has _nothing_ to do with what was mentioned. It basically only states that a person can alter a product that is protected by a patented. To apply this ruling to the Mavic, DJI has to allow other people to modify their Mavics as they want. The ruling states, once a patented item is sold, it's right to a patent on that item expires. This allows the person to then modify the item themselves (the patent on the design still exists).

It says _nothing_ about the obligation of the patent holder not to modify software in the device itself.

Again, it's speaking to the fact that manufacturers cannot control what you do with said device once purchased. This MAY as I stated in my OP, may be the beginning of something useful for us in the future. Who knows, but I just thought I'd share what I happened across earlier.

 

[SeaComms]

AND..... this is a US law, do you really think Chinese manufacturers that have been copying and blatantly ignoring US and international patents will give a rats about yet another US law? I think not... this was a US decision, not an international decision.

 

[tcope]

Again, it's speaking to the fact that manufacturers cannot control what you do with said device once purchased. This MAY as I stated in my OP, may be the beginning of something useful for us in the future. Who knows, but I just thought I'd share what I happened across earlier.

First, I understand you were just sharing. I was really speaking to "U Drone". Even then, a little harshly. But I'm a believer that repeating information also make you accountable to a certain degree. A person can't simple repeat info and represent it as fact and then cope out saying that they were just repeating it.... of course, unless you are the POTUS. Geez, I typed all of that just to work in that joke.

In certain cases, the ruling is only that the patent does not limit the person's use of the product. This is what U-Drone does not understand. They think this means that the manufacture cannot change things. This ruling does not address the manufacture changing the product after the fact.

 

[tcope]

AND..... this is a US law, do you really think Chinese manufacturers that have been copying and blatantly ignoring US and international patents will give a rats about yet another US law? I think not... this was a US decision, not an international decision.

DJI has a physical presence in the US. So they can be held accountable within the US.

 

[mark_t]

Again, it's speaking to the fact that manufacturers cannot control what you do with said device once purchased.

It is very specifically talking about the lack of ability to use patent law to control what happens to your product once sold.

This is not an innovative ruling and mostly reiterates opinions up to 100 years or more old.

Lexmark tried a new twist on some old precedents and prevailed in the lower courts in respect of the overseas sales, but lost in this ruling.

I know many people are looking for something to support their views in this area, but this ruling does not appear to be it, and in some ways it actually strengthens DJI's position as they do indeed depend on contract law not patent law for their claims.

 

[KD8ICQ]

First, I understand you were just sharing. I was really speaking to "U Drone". Even then, a little harshly. But I'm a believer that repeating information also make you accountable to a certain degree. A person can't simple repeat info and represent it as fact and then cope out saying that they were just repeating it.... of course, unless you are the POTUS. Geez, I typed all of that just to work in that joke.

In certain cases, the ruling is only that the patent does not limit the person's use of the product. This is what U-Drone does not understand. They think this means that the manufacture cannot change things. This ruling does not address the manufacture changing the product after the fact.

You make me laugh. That makes little to no sense whatsoever but hey, if you feel better, then all the more to ya. This is a forum of information. I passed that information along to the community to those that may have not been aware. It's silly to think, A: I'm responsible for what the article/post says and B: that I'm copping out in some way. The real fact of the matter is, no matter what people say here, there's always a group ready to tear them down. Such poor taste and lack of comradery. Guess that's why nothing ever moves forward or gets accomplished. Perhaps we should never post anything as a topic of discussion.

 

[Someone Else]

You make me laugh. That makes little to no sense whatsoever but hey, if you feel better, then all the more to ya. This is a forum of information. I passed that information along to the community to those that may have not been aware. It's silly to think, A: I'm responsible for what the article/post says and B: that I'm copping out in some way. The real fact of the matter is, no matter what people say here, there's always a group ready to tear them down. Such poor taste and lack of comradery. Guess that's why nothing ever moves forward or gets accomplished. Perhaps we should never post anything as a topic of discussion.

I believe the point is that your post is misleading and in a world filled with people that only read headlines and blurbs could easily be misconstrued as directly referencing drone companies as opposed to being about Lexmark and printers.

Now if you were to say "SCOTUS ruling overturns lower court judgments against Lexmark" and then explain why or how that could conceivably be related to drone manufacturers and consumers you might have something. Wouldn't really get the page views now would it?

 

[KD8ICQ]

I believe the point is that your post is misleading and in a world filled with people that only read headlines and blurbs could easily be misconstrued as directly referencing drone companies as opposed to being about Lexmark and printers.

Now if you were to say "SCOTUS ruling overturns lower court judgments against Lexmark" and then explain why or how that could conceivably be related to drone manufacturers and consumers you might have something. Wouldn't really get the page views now would it?

Nope. I posted as a means to inform others in this community of something related to ALL manufacturers, including those of drones.
So again, I guess no one need post anything for fear everyone will just get all close minded and simpleton status only to nitpick and *****. So much for proactive and forward thinking. Nice work, group!

 

[Someone Else]

Nope. I posted as a means to inform others in this community of something related to ALL manufacturers, including those of drones.
So again, I guess no one need post anything for fear everyone will just get all close minded and simpleton status only to nitpick and *****. So much for proactive and forward thinking. Nice work, group!

Claims to want discussion. Does not actually respond to discussion about copy paste Facebook post then resorts to insulting people.

Let's try again though. In your own words how does something that simply upholds patent law already in place apply to the current situation with DJI?

 

[wayy510]

AND..... this is a US law, do you really think Chinese manufacturers that have been copying and blatantly ignoring US and international patents will give a rats about yet another US law? I think not... this was a US decision, not an international decision.

But you think they care about non-existent U.S. Drone Law to create these restrictions/limits in the first place?

 

[KD8ICQ]

Claims to want discussion. Does not actually respond to discussion about copy paste Facebook post then resorts to insulting people.

Let's try again though. In your own words how does something that simply upholds patent law already in place apply to the current situation with DJI?

I'm not sure how I can outline this any more clearly. Manufacturers are not allowed to meddle with a product once it has been purchased. Although the case has nothing to do with drones directly, it clearly shows how this may be a stepping stone for future engagements with other DRONE RELATED situations and perhaps influence an end or at least a more logical and acceptable experience with firmware/hardware updates.

As far as insulting people??? I can clearly remember being chastised for simply reposting something I found relevant and everyone, in typical fashion, getting their panties in a bind over what was supposed to be thought provoking. Now this has literally become a swinging match completely detracted from the matter at hand. Why is it so difficult to actually come together on things for a change? Everyone is so offended and removed from life it's pitiful.

 

[mark_t]

I'm not sure how I can outline this any more clearly. Manufacturers are not allowed to meddle with a product once it has been purchased. Although the case has nothing to do with drones directly, it clearly shows how this may be a stepping stone for future engagements with other DRONE RELATED situations and perhaps influence an end or at least a more logical and acceptable experience with firmware/hardware updates.

Except that is not what the ruling says...

No matter how much you may wish it did, the ruling simply says that you can't use patent law to stop people modifying and reselling your products.

Neither DJI nor any other drone company I can think of has tried to use patent law in this way.

The case is all about how patent law applies to the resale of modified products by 3rd parties, and nothing to do with the original manufacturer modifying licensed software/firmware after sale.

SCOTUS even points out that contract law can extend control past the point of sale but patent law does not.

In this case Lexmark elected to use patent law to go after the re-manufacturers who bought the used cartridges, instead of using contract law to go after the consumers who broke their contract when they sold them. It is clearly easier to go after one manufacturer rather than hundreds or thousands of consumers but there was no contract with the manufacturer so they used patent law instead and failed.

It is at the very least, unhelpful, to portray this ruling as something useful to us or even vaguely on point.

Most people will just read the tag lines and not get past the first page of the ruling and the tag lines are simply wrong.

 

[Robbyg]

I wish I had the time to read all 26 pages but it's late.
It does appear to be an attempt by Lexmark to create a new twist to work outside laws that have been in place for hundreds of years.
The fact that DJI is moving in a direction to facilitate and enforce drone laws makes it dubious that it will have any effect. I would think that the only good that will come of it may be an opening for third party manufactured to create their own mavic firmware.
The basic laws already protect us from crippling the hardwares operation so that it no longer works at advertised specs. In this regard DJI has already been walking a very fine line.

Rob

 

[mark_t]

It does appear to be an attempt by Lexmark to create a new twist to work outside laws that have been in place for hundreds of years.

FWIW (..not much ) I think SCOTUS got it wrong on the overseas sales point and I prefer the dissenting view of Justice Ginsberg, but overall, there was nothing new in the ruling so no excitement there.

The basic laws already protect us from crippling the hardwares operation so that it no longer works at advertised specs. In this regard DJI has already been walking a very fine line.

Agreed and the only comments of relevance to us in the ruling was SCOTUS affirming (indirectly) that limitations applied via licenses between the licensor and licensee are still OK, but they depend upon contract law, not patent law.

All of this does not mean that there aren't some interesting fine points to be debated and tested in regards to the impact of licensed products like the Go 4 app for example and firmware updates that change capabilities of the aircraft, it is just that this particular case has nothing to say on those points as it is purely a judgement on the extent and applicability of patent law.

 

[Mickeyboo]

IP Law particularly when dealing with music and photography is constantly debating "transformative use" this case seems to indicate that in another area of intellectual property (patents) the debate is also seeping in...I think cases which are more relevant to the DJI situation would be those pertaining to firearm usage and whether or not a firearm manufacturer is responsible for the end user's use of the firearm. Thus far there have already been gun manufacturers taken to court but the plaintiffs have failed to prevail...with courts ruling that the manufacturer (defendant) has no liability with regard to an endusers use or activity unless it's related to manufacturing or design failure. It is interesting to note that the agreement you've been asked to agree to with DJI prior to being able to update your latest firmware exempts you from legal action for even design flaws and states that those issues can only be resolved thru mediation and not a court of law.