Slashdot Mirror
Lexmark Invokes DMCA in Toner Suit
Rhyas writes "Seems as though Lexmark has decided it wants all the pie when it comes to the printing world, as they are suing a company that does reselling of chips that allow third party toner cartridges to work in Lexmark printers. Cindy Cohn, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said she expected more cases like the one brought by Lexmark. 'We have long said that the DMCA's potential use as an anti-competitive tool has been great,' Cohn said. 'Now we're seeing it happen.'" The European Union is taking action against the practice of embedding chips in printer cartridges which make it difficult for third parties to sell refills.
I wasnt aware that toners were digital media.
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
The European Union is taking action against the practice of embedding chips in printer cartridges which make it difficult for third parties to sell refills.
While passing its own version of the DMCA, ironically enough.
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
Yet most people would agree that hacking/chipping consoles so you can play stolen games is illegal, even if you don't think it's unethical.
But how about hacking/chipping your console to play unlicensed - but not illegally copied - games, which is more equivilent to what we have here?
If the court ruling goes in favour of Lexmark, rather than in favour of common sense (you can put whatever toner you like in your printer, right? It's your printer after all), then the extension of the ruling to other cases is inevitable.
This means that there is the potential for manufacturers of other products that have consumables associated with them (your car, say) to put methods (a funny-shaped fuel filler, say) in to ensure that you can only use their consumables (fuel), and that a circumvention device (plastic funnel) so that you can use other consumables (fuel) will be ruled illegal.
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
Is there any kind of EULA to which a user must agree before using the printer?
Something such as "By using this printer I agree to only use Lexmark toner etc etc..."?
That's the only way Lexmark's attitude would make sense.
I think unless you prohibit certain potentially anti-DMCA activities at the outset, it's pretty cheesy to go after people later....
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
Perhaps it's the business model that's at fault here.
All the consoles have security measure to prevent just anybody from writing code on them. At least all the way back to the days of NES, where you needed to have a special chip in the cartrige for it to work. So Microsoft isn't any more evil than Nintendo, Sega, or Sony in this issue.
Plus, toner is a diffierent type of product than a video game. With toner, it is a consummable. Once you use the toner, its gone, and you have to buy new toner to continue using the printer. With video games, they last forever (well, assume proper care and the lifespan of the media they are on). You are never forced to buy new games to continue using the console.
"Isn't this fair?"
No it isn't, here's why:
1. It stiffles competetion and takes away basic freedom from the consumer (you can't buy part 1 from manufacturer A and part 2 from manufacturer B).
2. It produces huge amount unnecessary waste.
3. It misleads customers and it makes almost impossible to compare costs of printers during their lifetime.
Luckily, starting from 2006 this kind of practice will be illegal in EU and manufacturers will use standard cartiges.
"The reason Lexmark is pissed is because it sells its printers as a loss leader, and then makes money on the ink cartridges."
That's not an excuse, nobody is forcing Lexmark or anybody else to sell things at loss.
"This is not new. All console makers do the same thing. The XBox costs more than $149 to make, but MS sells them as loss leaders so they can make money on the games. Sony does the same. Nintendo does the same."
Sony and Nintendo doesn't sell their consoles at loss. But price dumping should be illegal also in console market.
"What's different about the printer industry? They're just trying to make their money in the best way possible. After all, it's consumers who have forced them to offer printers as loss leaders rather than having expensive printers and cheap ink."
LOL, "consumers forced"? You propably think that it's the consumers who forced MS to intergrate IE into Windows...
So would it be fair for Ford to require you to purchase Ford-brand tires and the only thing that distiguishes Ford-brand tires from regular tires is a chip that "authenticates" the tires as being Ford. Also, these tires are $3000 for a change of four. Better yet, only being able to buy engine parts that were only Ford-brand and the only that thing distiguishes them is an authetication chip. This is why this law needs to die a bloody death.
HT
Well, if they want to play that way, they may very well see the amount of printers they sell drop like a rock. I think a sort of boycott where nobody buys Lexmark printers would hopefully give them a kick in the butt that the computing public will not stand for moves like this.
.02
They RELY on people to buy their products to stay in business. If nobody does, OOPS, the revenues go down.
Screw 'em I say, SCREW 'EM!!!
Just my
We also know Lexmark is only using their interpretation of the DMCA to stifle competition. If nothing else, they figure they can bury the competition with legal bills.
The reason Lexmark is pissed is because it sells its printers as a loss leader, and then makes money on the ink cartridges.
Fine. Let them be pissed, it's not my problem.
This is not new. All console makers do the same thing. The XBox costs more than $149 to make, but MS sells them as loss leaders so they can make money on the games. Sony does the same. Nintendo does the same.
This wouldn't be the same Nintendo that got recently bitchslapped by the EU for price fixing by any chance?
Yet most people would agree that hacking/chipping consoles so you can play stolen games is illegal, even if you don't think it's unethical.
A lot of people think chipping DVDs is in some way illegal or immoral. It doesn't make it so.
If printer manufacturers want to make money on services, they can do it honestly like mobile phone telcos do by getting me to sign a contract. Otherwise they can take a hike.
Yeah, it's fair if you got the car for $1000.
What I think may end up happening is that the printer companies will find that the public has a distaste for this sort of profit structure and change their ways. The end result? Printer prices will rise, and supply prices will drop. There is an equilibrium that can be reached by making a profit off of supplies and hardware.
In a few years, I guarantee people start complaining that printers are too expensive. "They used to be cheap!" Tough, you can't have it both ways. Printing costs money.
If you use coded digital media somewhere in a product, even if its ridiculous, you can sue competitors that provide things to work with or replace that product.
I'm impressed. I never foresaw the DMCA protecting us from toner.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
So that means that if I buy a bottle of cola, I cannot fill it with water after?
May I use your sig please?
So, let printer prices rise. Then we can have some nice competition among printer makers, as opposed to this mess.
And if people complain? Let them complain. At least the prices they'll deal with will be somewhat more honest, as will the business practices that involve dealing with the customer and the market, not the courts.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Imagine if Daimler-Chrylser, Ford, GM and others decided to implant devices in auto parts that communicated with the car's central processing unit. Then imagine your car not starting because you have a third party distributor cap or alternator. There would be an uproar and I'm sure it would be illegal. I think Lexmark thinks it can get away with this because it makes printers, designed to work with computers, and so might conceivably be covered by the DMCA. This is clearly a bunch of bullshit.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
Only if you signed a contract with Ford that stated you would only buy their tires. Otherwise, you own the car and have the right to use whatever tires you want.
I don't have a problem with Lexmark making it technically difficult for competitors. I do have a problem when they use copyright, a government enforced monopoly on the software, to extend that monopoly into another market, i.e. the ink cartridge replacement market.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
Yes. It's their product and they are not a monopoly. It's also fair for you to buy antoher brand of car instead if you don't like Ford's products.
Please note that Lexmark alleges both DMCA violation and traditional copyright violation. I.e. the aftermarket chips contain identical unauthorised copies of Lexmark copyrighted code. If this is true then at least this part of the suit is bound to succeed.
Remember IBM typewriter ribbons?
Yeah, I remember those. And, you know what happened to IBM's printer and typewriter division? That's right, it was spun off into (da da da dum)... Lexmark.
It's not surprising, really.
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
So in the end, I begin to wonder if the printer industry has a business model similar to that of the console gaming industry. (Although I would find it odd if they sold the printers at a loss as consoles often do initially)
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
If you read my message, I would still sue Canon, Epson, HP and Lexmark for violating the Magnuson-Mass Act for the illegal business practice of tying (essentially being forced to buy replacement supplies or services from only one manufacturer after initial sale, I think).
After the successful lawsuit, the Federal government will force the printer manufacturers to allow approved third parties to manufacture printer consumables that will not violate the printer warranty.
Right, which was the point I was trying to make without beating anyone's head over it. Our "health care" costs are higher because their "taxes" are higher. Well, not entirely because of that, but it's one contributing factor.
-Alison
Let me see. Yes, you own the printer, but you also own the DirecTV box.
You own a copy of the software that authenticates cartridges, just like you own a copy of the software on your box that authenticates the programs you can watch.
So, I guess you can make that copy of the software do anything you want it to, so long as you're not violating copyright by distributing or copying the software.
Except that they didn't "soak" people on th blades. They just relied on the "free razor" gimmick to create a customer base large enough to make the blades profitable. This made it a reasonable business move because ANYONE could make razor blades, but they knew people would mostly stick to the brand the razor handle had on it. Lexmark's actions are different. Embedding superfluous chips in their inkjet cartridges and suing reverse-engineerers under the DMCA to prevent anyone else from making refills is what's anticompetitive
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Know what? My coffeemaker says the same thing about using only "Genuine MR Coffee Filters". But at the end of the day a coffee filter is a coffee filter, and you don't see Mr Coffee suing generic coffee filter manufacturers for this kind of thing.
My Epson C60 printer cartridge contains such chips
designed to thwart 3rd party refillers but the little refill outfit I deal with has developed a
gadget that resets the chip. Now, I suppose that's
a violation of the U.S. DMCA as well. I live in
Canada and we don't have a version of the DMCA yet
but I'm sure we will have one either imposed on us
by our Parliament or by signing on to some new international treaty or convention. What we have
is a new form of intellectual Darwinism called "Survival of the Fattest" in which them that have
keep having more and them that don't have are SOL.
I guess that's what passes for "Free Enterprise" these days.