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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?"