As you and chii correctly point out, the NYT article is about resale. I believe however that amelius, with the statement &quot;Patent Law shouldn&#x27;t block any sale&quot;, meant to broaden the topic to include first sale. My comment should be viewed as commenting on that change of topic.<p>If amelius only meant to include re-selling equipment acquired under a valid patent license, then the phrase &quot;It should at most lead to reasonable financial compensation of the inventors&quot; makes no sense. Were patent rights to follow first-sale doctrine, the patent holder would receive no financial compensation for resale. Which, for the record, is fine with me.<p>I was remiss in not making that clear in my scenario.