Fuji Vs Jazz Camera: Judiciating Obsolescence

I couldn't find my references to this on the blog search, so I thought I'd post again what is perhaps the clearest possible case of "Obsolescence in Hindsight". Fuji makes a "disposable camera". Environmentalists complain that it is making "waste". But the waste never shows up in the landfill, because an entrepreneur sticks new film and lenses in the cameras and resells them for millions of dollars. Fuji

The USA Supreme Court, as well as international courts, were pulled in to answer the following question:

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether it is a permissible "repair" of a patented invention to refurbish it once the invention has completed its function and been voluntarily destroyed.

In the Supreme Court of the United States

No. 01-1376

FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD., CROSS-PETITIONER

v.

JAZZ PHOTO CORPORATION, ET AL.

If someone invents something disposable, and you don't dispose of it, have you violated a patent? If you fix your Ford, can Ford sue you for copyright infringement if it was "not Ford's intent" that you fix it?

The money Fuji (and other "friends") spent chasing this to the Supreme Court (to lose) would be funny except that they won in other countries, and in fact they won in the USA Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

What's next, a EULA license to use a wrench? "before opening the package with this hammer, check the box that you agree you won't resell the hammer"?

Spooky.

Refurbishing and Recycling should go together, complement each other. Can't we all get along?

From Mexico 2009 May

From Big Secret Monitor Factories - Legitimate Reuse vs. "E-waste"