The First Civil Senate of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Az: I ZR 94/05, Urteil vom 06.12.07) had to decide if whether there is also the sale of printers, a so-called copyright fee. Had complained to the collecting society (VG) word. This represents the rights of authors, translators and publishers. Defendant was the technology group and manufacturers of printers Hewlett-Packard (HP) Company. The copyright fee would be justified if it is a printer is a device that is intended to be a copyrighted work "with a photocopy of a workpiece or procedures (with)" comparable action "to reproduce.
The Supreme Court noted in its decision prada sneakers that printer does not fall under the so-called functional description and paid for this, no author or copyright devices remuneration package should be. Any reproduction of protected works is the opinion of the Supreme Court alone is not a printer. This also applies if there are additional devices like a laptop in the game.

To the Supreme Court, in its Press Release No. 186/2007: "If a printer is used in conjunction with a scanner and a PC, this function is unity, although likely to be used like a conventional photocopier. The Federal Court has shoes sneakers already by decision of 5 July 2001 (I ZR 335/98, GRUR 2002, 246 - scanner) decided that the scanner is, therefore, pay compensation, he is within such a device combination most clearly intended to be used in conjunction with other equipment like a copying machine (almost every scanner is used in the context of such a functional unit, while the PC and printer without a scanner is used often to come).