Slashdot Mirror

No. See SCC vs. Lexmark. This is the compatible ink cartridge case. You can't use the DMCA to prevent someone from making a compatible component.

From the Sixth Circuit decision, "Generally speaking, "lock-out" codes fall on the functional-idea rather than the original-expression side of the copyright line. Manufacturers of interoperable devices such as computers and software, game consoles and video games, printers and toner cartridges, or automobiles and replacement parts may employ a security system to bar the use of unauthorized components. To "unlock" and permit operation of the primary device (i.e., the computer, the game console, the printer, the car), the component must contain either a certain code sequence or be able to respond appropriately to an authentication process. To the extent compatibility requires that a particular code sequence be included in the component device to permit its use, the merger and scènes à faire doctrines generally preclude the code sequence from obtaining copyright protection."

I think I see what you mean but it's not quite what I was saying. I wasn't concentrating on the hardware aspects of the iPod... I was just using the printer cartridge case to show that the law was being interpreted very narrowly (and the copyright office thinks its too narrow).

What I was trying to say that rather than a sofware/software interoperability case, this may be seen as data/software interoperability. The first one is where one piece of software interacts with another -- example: a mouse driver and windows. Both programs are running on the same processor and at the same time (well, at least, time-sliced).

The second case is different because, once you've run the Harmony program, you're left with a data file... It's that file that is interoperating with the ipod firmware. (note that, at the time of playback, the harmony program isn't running and the computer it would run on (PC) isn't even connected to the ipod).

There's a difference, and I'm not so sure that a judge would find Harmony in this narrow exception. Of course, the copyright office and judges may have to battle it out, and I hope that eventually Real wins. We need more DMCA caselaw, and I'd like to make sure that this portion of the dmca is interpreted broadly.

No, looking up things from the party involved http://www.scc-inc.com/Products/default.htm

FROM SCCs WEB SITE, they sell parts to remanufactures - THEY DON'T REFILL CARTRIDGES OR SELL REFILLED CARTRIDGES.

They seem to sell to third parties (one in my area is LaserLogic) so that the third party can do those things - replace drums, wiper, refill cartridges, etc.

I agree one of us doesn't know what they are talking about. As I am taking my information from that given by Static Control Component, I suspect it is you.

I'm pretty well aware of what there [sic] services are.

Evidently not.

As I said, they make parts - including chips - FOR OTHER COMPANIES so the other companies can remanufacture (and sell) toner cartridges.

It's not just lawyer bills... The injunction has halted the sale of SCC's smartek chips since feb 8... Nine months of lost sales for SCC and the cartridge remanufacturers who buy SCC's chips.

What kills me is that, in granting the preliminary injunction the judge had to consider the potential for damages (page 48)... he found that Lexmark would suffer "irreparable harm" in terms of lost sales and money. Excuse me, but I think those can be repaired with money. On the other hand, if SCC had been put out of business under a load of bogus legal bills it couldn't survive, I think it would have suffered irreparable harm.

Here's SCC's webpage on the case. They have a Press Release (pdf) and a link to the official ruling site (but I don't see the ruling there yet).

I've been watching this case closely, and I'm glad it's been thrown out like the Garage door opener case!

Here's SCC's webpage on the case. They have a Press Release (pdf) and a link to the official ruling site (but I don't see the ruling there yet).

I've been watching this case closely, and I'm glad it's been thrown out like the Garage door opener case!

I don't think Static Control would get shut down if they lost to Lexmark. Cloned printer cartridges are not their first or (IIRC) largest business. They make static bags and shields (thus the name) and electronic test equipment. I don't know what inspired them to venture into the ink cartridge market.

I do not doubt that Static Control asked for this law, but I don't think those 1200 jobs or the company's existence were at stake.

NC's passage of the "right to refill" law is in keeping with its passage two years ago of a UCITA bomb-shelter law. Both aim to limit the effect of bad technology laws in other jurisdictions on NC customers.

ALL the manufacturers are playing this game including HP.

Static control has a section of their website devoted to descibing the obstacles they face. It features a whitepaper describing the technical challenges (some of these chips are full-custom and some are RF), a letter from their CEO, and a whole lot of information on printer security chips.

Static control has a section of their website devoted to descibing the obstacles they face. It features a whitepaper describing the technical challenges (some of these chips are full-custom and some are RF), a letter from their CEO, and a whole lot of information on printer security chips.

Static control has a section of their website devoted to descibing the obstacles they face. It features a whitepaper describing the technical challenges (some of these chips are full-custom and some are RF), a letter from their CEO, and a whole lot of information on printer security chips.