It’s not mentioned because it’s utterly irrelevant. The question before the court was whether the Patent Act provided legal basis for Lexmark to enforce restrictions on the use of property even after its sale to others. The court found that it does not.
Even if I were convinced that Lexmark’s pricing scheme was a benevolent attempt to provide cheap toner for all; the implications of their having the ability to enforce whatever restrictions they deemed fit for the entire duration of the relevant patents would be broad and chilling. On the ‘de-facto abolition of “ownership” across most sectors’ scale of broad and chilling. Since I don’t even suspect Lexmark of having my print cost interests at heart; the ‘loss’ is even less relevant compared to the win.
Now, if Lexmark believes that some contracts are being violated, perhaps they have something; but their attempt to bring patent law into the matter is egregious.
