Slashdot Mirror
Lexmark Wins Injunction in Toner Cartridge Suit
goingincirclez writes "Cnet reports that Lexmark has won an injunction against Static Control Components, Inc., which effectively prohibits the manufacture of recycled / third party toner cartidges. Slashdot covered the initial filing of the suit. SCC also has a rebuttal site that definitely warrants checking out. I would like to think that other printer manufacturers won't follow suit, but I'm not that naive. Better start your trust fund for ink cartridges."
How much ink do these spammers think we need? I'd only need that much if I were printing out all of their messages.
I cannot see how this is ever going to turn out good for the consumer. This will enable the makers of printers to almost charge whatever they want for their cartridges.
#jlk
I mean seriously, why do people cling to such an outdated technology? When it comes to documents why not just print to PDF and email it?
Read it on the screen people, not on paper!
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
If the genuine Lexmark ink cartridges are that good, then they shouldn't have a problem convincing people to buy genuine ones. Oh wait... the ink cartridges are only expensive because of an artificial monopoly on replacement parts? Not because they're actually that good? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
How the hell do these toner cartridges affect the printer manufacturer's copyright? DMCA is supposed to be about protecting so-called intellectual property. That clearly is NOT the use to which it is being put here.
What's next? My "Check Engine Soon" light will be programmed to come on from time to time and the on-board computer will make the car run badly until the proper "reset" signal is used? And don't try to figure out the reset code yourself - you'd be in violation of the DMCA!
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
You paid your taxes too willingly. Corporations donate voluntarily to barter favors. Government likes to negotiate. Its how an organism grows most effectively.
And when exactly will you be informed that you are purchasing a printer that has a single supplier for refills? Do you suppose that there will be a big, screaming banner on the box stating that for now and forever you will be raped by overpriced single-source refills? Probably not.
Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
While I'm certainly not a fan of the DMCA, I'm not sure this is a poor decision by the courts, etc. I think that it's probably reasonable for Lexmark to be able to forbid third-parties from selling supplies, if that's a business decision they want to make.
No, it's not. It's not reasonable for GM to put an additive in a GM-brand gas, and have GM cars only run on that. It's not reasonable for Lexmark to force you to use lexmark-brand ink.
Now, if they were to say that using 3rd-party ink violated the warranty, and detected that, so if you had a printer gunged up by a cheap knock-off ink they wouldn't replace it, then that's reasonable. But a blanket "you can't use it" isn't.
"In other news, General Motors win a successful injunction against Michelin for producing replacement tyres for their cars. Now only GM's proprietary brands may be used..."
Surely this must be anti-competitive? If a company providing the hardware has exclusive rights over parts needed to use that hardware, then they have a monopoly in the sense they can charge WTF they like for those consumables. It's ludicrous.
But then again, maybe market forces will decide this one... people will usually move away from the restrictive rip-off brands, as long as there is an alternative.
You are joking right? Have you looked at the prices of Epson or HP cartridges? They are horribly expensive just like the Lexmark supplies. Also, if companies like Lexmark are allowed to decide what manufacturers are allowed to sell supplies for thier printers what is to stop car manufacturers from forcing car buyers to purchase specific types of gasoline or oil? Sure it's not a perfect analogy but it's close enough. It should be the consumers right to use whatever supplies they want with thier printer. You did buy it after all. What's the next step? Only being allowed to you Lexmark approved paper in your printer? I'm sure it will only be 100-200% more than the bargain brand that you were using before.
This is exactly why I have an old HP LaserJet 4 Plus that I got off of ebay. Every once in a while the toner cartridge will need to be replaced, but for my needs I fill the cartridge once a year or so with a $14 refill kit. The last ink jet printer I had used ink like crazy, and if you didn't use all the ink up they dried out and you had to prelace them anyway. Color cartridges for the POS were $45 and the black cartridge was $35. I may as well have thrown the printer away and bought a new one every time at those prices.
Exepect such chips to appear in every kind of items where you have consummable, or additional part needed. Now that a judgement has been upholded that you can use the DMCA to stamp out somebody making a cheaper replacement, you can artificially make your own monopoly. Buy Ford Tire ? We have this new chip we check for air pressure in it ! Secure and stuff. You want to replace it ? Oh, bad luck you have to do it at our condition in a ford garage. Oh, and don't try to put another tire the car won't start (security check on tire pressure fail).
We do not live in republic or democracy we live in a Corporatocracy.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I hope you use only GM oil filters, GM oil, GM air filters, and none of those illegal third party auto parts in your car.
After all, GM developed their engines.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
No, my friend, that step doesn't happen until the half full cartridge that shipped with the printer runs dry; and then it is too late!
Murphy was an optimist.
Man, you could take that line of thinking to a ridiculous extreme couldn't you? (like it isn't there already).
..in BLINKING NEON LETTERS:
.. we hardly knew ye ..
Here's the BIG NEWS FLASH..
The printer I buy is MY printer. I have the right to get supplies from any supplier. And any supplier has the right to sell it to me.
What happened to the "free market"? If they sell their cartridges for $30, and another guy can come along and sell them for $10, that means they are OVERPRICED by $20 to BEGIN WITH! Hello competition! The other guy is supposed to be *rewarded* for this effort, not *sued*.
Efficient free markets
That's the whole point, isn't it? You could buy a cartridge from another company that would fit in your Lexmark printer. They're going to court to try and make it so you can't do that any more.
If they win the court decision, and if it doesn't hurt their market share, other companies will do the same thing. Or maybe they will anyway. Manufacturers might figure that if they all screw the consumer simultaneously, they can all get rich together.
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
And if Ford put a DMCA-covered chip in the filter, and your car wouldn't start unless the filter had the chip, Ford could force you into buying factory filters.
If they had a patent, I'd agree with you, and this would be a non-issue.
But they dont have a patent, and they cant get one. So they circumvent patent law using the DMCA, all they have to do is stick a little chip in the cartridges that the printer detects, and if you circumvent that, you're in violation.
The tech industry is getting chock full of companies trying to protect with copyrights or trademarks that which they cant protect with patents.
For instance, the PSX (and PS2) forces the sony logo onscreen as part of its bootup sequence and protection scheme - it must be on the disc to boot. So when Action Replay/Gameshark came out, they had to put the logo on their unlicensed disks for it to work in a real machine. Sony, who couldnt patent the boot-up process of the console, then sued them for trademark infringment for using the PS2 logo. A judge struck it down, saying they couldnt protect with a TM something that was unpatentable.
Copyright, patent and trademark exist for distinct purposes and with restrictions. Enough with the cutesy legal tricks to bypass those restrictions.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
This battle has been fought before, if not in the courts than in the marketplace.
Without saying anything about the quality of certain brands, what really allowed the PC to become the dominant computer over Macintosh was the fact that PC parts were commodities. This allowed the prices of PC parts to remain low, increasing demand.
If Lexmark continues to block other manufacturers from creating Lexmark compatible cartriges, another printer manufacturer will realize the benefits of increased market share, and allow their printers to use cheaper ink.
Just ask any economist!
An online Starcraft RPG? Only at
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
You've nailed it on the head. The current sales scheme relies on the ignorance of the customer at the time of purchase ("Cheap printer? OK!"). That's almost as bad as an outright bait and switch.
What next? Is Nabisco going to start telling me which brand of milk I have to use on my cereal? Will Windows require me to own a Microsoft mouse? Will my amplifier require their brand of speakers? Will my GE lamp only work with their light bulbs (don't get any ideas, GE)?
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
The issue is that gas and paper are not under the controlling interests of auto manufacturers nor printer manufacturers.
For now, and not entirely true. Have you seen how much HP makes from selling paper?
The specific inkjet nossel, or toner cartrage is highly customized to fit the particular printer. Thus it's entirely possible to use the DMCA to conceal the API, or the patent the particular usage of the device.
The gas nossel, or intake system is highly customized to fit the particular car. Thus it's entirely possible to use the DMCA to conceal the API, or the patent the particular usage of the device.
Someone that makes paper can do so for any number of printers; and thus can't have an injunction.
What's to stop HP from putting RFID tags in thier paper products and ensuring that only HP paper is used in thier printers? Absolutely nothing. It also would be protectable under the DMCA.
Someone that goes out of their way to produce a cartraige that fits a particular printer has an obvious intent, and thus is at least susceptable to court harrasment.
Open to court harrassment due to bad law. However that's just my opinion. Unless it can be proven that the cartridges violate a patent this shouldn't even be wasting a courts time.
What Lexmark and friends do is put 90% of their technology into their print-head. This makes the design slightly more expensive but it garuntees that you can't take advantage of alternative vendors.
It doesn't gaurantee anything. They hope that by putting 90% of thier technology into the print head you won't be able to use alternate vendors, but it doesn't gaurantee anything. Only through legal means are they able to effectivly stomp out competition. If the vendors are violating a patent then that is the direction a lawsuit should be taken. However putting a chip on the cartidges that reports the cartidges status and using that as a copy protection mechanism is simply assinine.
As it stands today I can drive over to any auto parts store in town and have a selection of air filters for my vehicle. If Honda followed in the footsteps of Lexmark I could expect that the next revision of my car would have a special mechanism to report that the airfilter was dirty and needed replacing. Due to the special mechanism I would only be able to buy a Honda air filter. Any third party manufacturer would be sued under the DMCA if they attempted to provide an air filter for that vehicle as they would have to "circumvent" the reporting mechanism for their air filter to work.
Is that a better analogy for you?
There have been several cases/laws brought to light in order to allow someone to use aftermarket parts to repair their car. You can go down to your local Canadian Tire (or PEP Boys in the US) and buy just about any replacement part for your car. Brakes, Brake pads, window motors, water pumps, gas tanks, just about anything you need to repair the mechanicals of a car.
Question... How is a printer any different? If my engine burned out I shouldn't have to go and buy a new engine! If I want to go to the scrap yard and perhaps get one pulled from a wreck that's my legal right. How can this same argument not be applied to the toner cartridge in a printer? Better yet if you assoicate toner to gas imagine if the gas in your car was vehicle specific. Having to buy GM gas from GM gas stations! That's not just wrong it's completely INSANE!
I just payed $84cdn to get new ink for my Canon as I elected to buy the Canon brand. However I didn't see a choice when I was in the store, it was Canon or nothing for my Canon printer. Sure I could have bought one of those
Wow, today is a dark day for competition indeed!
Syn Ack.
- Calgon take me away!
Yes, Lexmark got an injunction... a PRELIMINARY one. That only means that those which they are suing, Static Control, cannot make/sell/whatever is in the injunction, pending the outcome of the case. It DOES NOT mean that NO ONE can manufacture replacement cartridges. It is only a temporary measure to halt production in the meantime until there is a judgment. While not good for Static Control, it does NOT signal the death knell for cartridge replacement.
Who the hell is stupid enough to buy a Lexmark inkjet in the first place. Their business plan is so transparent that you have to be really thick not to get it.
1. Sell printers with half a cartridge of ink with a loss to atract joe-sixpack (EXTRA now with flashing colours for just 99,99 or whatever).
2. Sell cartridges at inflated price to cover for step one (joe-sixpack: I already paid for the printer so why not buy the ink).
3. Profit
In the last six years (not shit) I've gone through three tonerpacks for my HP4L. If you don't desperately need those stupid colors, then why let yourself get raped by those gorillas ? Laser is so much cheaper.
And if you really, really need those colours then for heavens sake buy two printers (one laser, one ink). It will save you in the long run. Black ink is also pretty costly.
TCAP-Abort
TCAP-Abort
They suck.
I grant you they're often inexpensive to buy, but it seems Lexmark counts on making their profits by selling shoddy, overly-expensive ink and toner cartridges over the clunky two year (if that) lifespan of the cheap printers.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
It's an unethical, shameful way of doing business.
Couldn't they make their company profitable honestly, by making QUALITY products in the first place? Hmmm. But that wouldn't help out the attorneys, would it?
Just goes to show: patents and copyrights often protect only those who are unable to run honest or efficient businesses, and who don't have the interest in making quality products.
Does anyone remember who the litigant was and when the suit happened? As I understand it, that suit opened up the 3rd party printer supplier industry.
One thing to consider. The cartridges in question, are *not* necessary for the printer.
Lexmark makes 2 different kinds of catridges for that printer. One kind, is sold at a higher price, and is yours. Free and clear. Once you buy it, you can refill to your hearts content.
The catridges, that have the chip embedded, are sold under a separate program. And they are referred to as "prebate" cartriges. You pay less for them up front. And are obligated to return the cartridge to Lexmark (at their expense) after one use.
The chips that are the basis of the lawsuit, are a way of reusing the "prebate" cartridges, rather than sending them back as you agreed when you bought it from Lexmark.
Lexmark VERY clearly says, all over their website. That if you want to refill catridges, just buy the "full price" product, and go at it.
Basically what this all boils down to, is SCC is selling a chip that allows the circumvention of an agreement that consumers made with Lexmark. And on that basis, I really don't see what the big fuss is about.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
There are a wide variety of sites were we can go to get information about price, performance, features, and everything else relating to a new product we want to buy. Rarely do any of these places contain any information about whether purchasing the product will lock the buyer into buying supplies for that product from the OEM only. I think this is mostly because this has hardly ever been an issue in the past. I may have a GM car, but GM can only tell me that my car will run better with original GM replacement parts, not that I have no choice.
It seems to me that this should be a part of any good review of a product. A review of a Lexmark printer on a reputable site on the web will tell me the lifetime of the cartridge, the number of pages printed per minutes, the quality of the print, and many other things, but never touches an issue such as whether supplies are available from third parties.
Perhaps this should be considered to be an important element to any product review in the field of consumer electronics. After the events of the last few years and the effects of the DMCA it certainly is for me.
There's a lesson here for you. The people who work at auto parts behind the counter aren't authorities on the law or very knowledgeable about what's going on in the industry! I hear all kinds of stupid crap from people working at those places, and I just ignore it. If they tell me they think something will or won't work because of past customers, I'll put some stock in that. But anything outside their expertise, forget it. I've met lots of them who didn't even know what variable-valve timing was, and that's been on lots of cars for years; anyone who keeps up on the latest engine technologies would know about it.
You can't "copyright" a design for a physical part. How do you think all those Taiwanese companies make knock-off fenders and body panels? Why do you see brochures at the dealer advising you to only buy genuine body parts even when your insurance company doesn't want to?
The reason you couldn't get a knock-off taillight is because your car wasn't popular enough for them to make one. They only make them for very popular cars because there's too many designs. You might be able to get one for a Ford F-150, but anything else, good luck. Most of the time, you either need to buy the dealer part, or go to a junkyard. Many times, people sell this stuff on ebay too.
Just because someone hasn't made a copy yet doesn't mean there's anything besides economics from doing so.
The U.S. Copyright Office should not be used as an substitute yet uber-patent office. By adding any sort trivial addition to a mechanical device to lay a DMCA claim, one can create in effect a de facto patent protection of a commercial device, but with a much longer or unlimited term, and with a free ride of enforcement by the U.S. Government. This is clearly not what Copyrights are intended to protect.
Imagine an automotive company wishes to force people to purchase only tires manufactured by themselves. They first attempt to force consumer choice by patenting the idea of round tires, but the US Patent Office rules (correctly) that their design has not unique and denies the application. All the MBA's in upper management are crushed.
"Fear not," their lawyers cry, "we'll get something better...we'll get you protection -- and not for a patent's measly 20 years. No we'll give you 120 years of protection...AND the U.S. Government will investigate violations and enforce this 'uber-patent' for you."
"By adding a dime's worth of electronic tagging on the tire--we'll call it a Quality Verification Tag that says the tire is an 'original and not remanufacturered' and have the car check for that before it starts." "No, because we'll say their tires infringe on our..." "No--and here's the trick--it infringes on our Copyrights, unjustly defeating our 'technological controls, thereby allowing unauthorized access' to the car." "Not with the DMCA. Fear not about competition or the previously notions of an unrestrained free market." assures the now quite confident counsel, "It's nice as 'general principle' but," he says as he smiles "public policy certainly does not support copyright infringement and violations of the DMCA in the name of competition...."--
For those concerned that 120 years isn't long enough, a company needs only every 119 years just to change the "Quality Verification Tag" and get a whole new Copyright to fend off any and all competition -- for literally until the end of time (or at least the end of the DMCA)." Disney's aspirations ain't go nothin' on Lexmark.
Those who help create the U.S. Constitution wrote in Article I, section 8,
They are surely sitting up in their grave over this end run of authority, their spinning heads give out an incredulous cry of "Whaaaaaaa?"