The new rules start December 1.
From then on, all new phones must be unlocked. And for phones people already own, they can ask their provider to unlock it, and unlocking it has to be free, according to the CRTC.
Currently, telecoms stock stores with phones that they make sure are locked (so users can only use their service). To unlock it, they charge around $50.
Showing posts with label Consumer Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Consumer Law. Show all posts
Thursday, 15 June 2017
Thursday, 1 June 2017
Lexmark Sued a Company That Let Buyers Refill Their Ink Cartridges ... and Lost
The Supreme court in a 7-1 decision found that consumers can do what they want with the printers they buy, despite Lexmark forcing buyers to "sign" a "post-sale restriction" contract that the buyer won't tamper with their patented product after they buy it.
The case is "Impression v Lexmark."
Lexmark makes two similar types of printers: the cheaper one comes with ink cartridges that have a chip on them that prevents users from refilling them and putting them back in the printer, so the user has to go buy a new one from a store. Impression removes the chip so users can refill their cartridges.
Lexmark sued, saying that infringes on their property rights (which they said they maintained post-sale) that prevented third parties from modifying or repairing their products.
The court reasoned that if companies could maintain property rights preventing modification and repair after a product was sold, pretty much every repair shop in the country could be sued, the "smooth flow of commerce" would be impaired, and all parties involved would end up harmed.
The case is "Impression v Lexmark."
Lexmark makes two similar types of printers: the cheaper one comes with ink cartridges that have a chip on them that prevents users from refilling them and putting them back in the printer, so the user has to go buy a new one from a store. Impression removes the chip so users can refill their cartridges.
Lexmark sued, saying that infringes on their property rights (which they said they maintained post-sale) that prevented third parties from modifying or repairing their products.
The court reasoned that if companies could maintain property rights preventing modification and repair after a product was sold, pretty much every repair shop in the country could be sued, the "smooth flow of commerce" would be impaired, and all parties involved would end up harmed.
Read more about:
Business,
Consumer Law,
Economy,
Impression v Landmark,
Intellectual Property,
IP,
Law,
Property Rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Facebook Bans White Nationalist's Account Over Hate Speech
Facebook has joined other online platforms and has banned Christopher Cantwell's accounts. according to Facebook spokeswoman Ruchika Bud...