I think as long as it is communicated clearly to the consumer I don't have any problem with whatever restrictions the company wants (purchasing is a voluntary decision).
OK, done reading? That's why this is terrible. Our economy is partially built on the principle that once you buy something, it's yours to do with as you see fit. There are still limits, like you can't buy a book then distribute copies of it, but in general it's yours to modify, hack, fold, spindle, and mutilate.
In this context, Lexmark is trying to say "you gave us your cash, but we still own the thing". No, screw that. Toyota doesn't have a say in what I do with our minivan. I can swap its engine with one from a Ferrari if I want, paint it neon orange, and reupholster it with frog skin. It's mine. I don't have to get their permission to modify it in any way I want. (Laws still apply, of course, but that's outside of Toyota's control.) Well, same with Lexmark: they give up the right to tell me I can't refill a toner cartridge when I buy it from them. At that moment, the transaction is finished. They have money; I have full ownership of the unit.
The company can just make it clear that they are not selling the product.
Commerce would grind to a halt if you had to retain a lawyer every time you wanted to buy something off the shelf from Target.
This has been already done with music and other media, by the way.
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.
Somehow, I think Lexmark might have a problem with this. They want the benefits of the rental model without the drawbacks.
However, using IP law to gain the rights of ownership without the responsibility is something entirely different.
If you want to get all "free market" about it, drop the larger distorting effect of government sanctioned monopolies first.
How so? Especially regarding the part about "government sanctioned"?
if you switch shouldn't to can't (like lexmark is asserting) then it's not a choice
*edit for clarity
Just like how when purchasing a car, buyers check MPG to ensure the cost of fuel will not be too high.