Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. | Wikipedia audio article
Channel: wikipedia tts
Date: 2019-01-19

This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta_Computer,_Inc._v._LG_Electronics,_Inc.


00:01:25 1 Factual background
00:05:14 2 iMallinckrodt/i background
00:09:57 3 Supreme Court opinion
00:10:14 3.1 Method claims
00:11:30 3.2 Exhaustion and related patents
00:16:13 3.3 Licensing a limited field
00:22:01 3.4 No contract issue
00:23:07 4 Impact and issues that the court did not consider
00:25:53 4.1 Other transactional forms
00:28:07 4.2 Resolving the "anomaly"
00:29:59 4.3 Can contract trump the exhaustion doctrine?
00:33:03 5 Subsequent decisions
00:33:13 5.1 iStatic Control/i
00:36:35 5.2 iImpression Products/i



Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.

Learning by listening is a great way to:
- increases imagination and understanding
- improves your listening skills
- improves your own spoken accent
- learn while on the move
- reduce eye strain

Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.

Listen on Google Assistant through Extra Audio:
https://assistant.google.com/services/invoke/uid/0000001a130b3f91
Other Wikipedia audio articles at:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wikipedia+tts
Upload your own Wikipedia articles through:
https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts
Speaking Rate: 0.7293326115602924
Voice name: en-US-Wavenet-E


"I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think."
- Socrates


SUMMARY
=======
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine, and in doing so made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called "rule of reason" analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes. In the course of restating the patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court held that the exhaustion doctrine is triggered by, among other things, an authorized sale of a component when the only reasonable and intended use of the component is to practice the patent and the component substantially embodies the patented invention by embodying its essential features. The Court also overturned, in passing, the part of decision below that held that the exhaustion doctrine was limited to product claims and did not apply to method claims.