>Purchasing could be a voluntary decision but, here, we are talking about changing the definition of purchasing because it's not convenient for the seller.

This isn't really new. Major purchases often have contractual limitations. There was time in America where many houses had a restriction on their deed that prevented them from selling to African Americans.

The fundamental problem here is the method of contracting, and this change is sort of recent. Contract law has evolved to the point where you can enter a contract just by opening a box with very vague terms on it. I think that is ridiculous.

If Lexmark wants to have a program where you contractually promise to not resell in exchange for a discount, I'm fine with it. But slapping a warning label on the box shouldn't count as a contract.

But there really isn't any hope of courts changing the law on contracts. It's well settled now.

It can be explicitly labelled as not being a "purchase".

That would be fine, so long as it's not sold in stores alongside other items for purchase, and is explicitly and prominently communicated to the buyer. There's nothing wrong with renting, so long as everyone knows it's a rental.

Somehow, I think Lexmark might have a problem with this. They want the benefits of the rental model without the drawbacks.

There is nothing wrong with that. For the right price it could even be an net benefit the consumer. If PrintCo rents printers to customers for a fee and takes on the accompanying liability then consumers may have access to higher quality and more durable goods as it reduces PrintCo's maintenance cost.

However, using IP law to gain the rights of ownership without the responsibility is something entirely different.