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
Just print everything at work.
Life in Orange County
Of the people, by the people, for the people?
Oh...fuck the people. They left that one off.
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.
However, I don't think that, even if they ultimately win this case all the way up the line, that this is a winning business strategy. I certainly am not going to buy a printer that is tied exclusively to the manufacturer.
This can't be good publicity for Lexmark; every story is explaining that the manufacturer's supplies are more expensive. That's got to have consumers thinking about buying from HP, or Epson, or whomever.
I think this is a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot, and then sueing for the privilege of doing so again.
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).
This is good news for Dell. They'll be selling their own printers in about a month, and anything that makes other manufacturers look bad will help them gain marketshare. What will be interesting is to see how Dell plays in the ink cartridge business. Will they try to be like everyone else, or will they try to do to ink prices what they've done to PC prices?
It came with all toner cartridges only 25% filled. This was not mentioned anywhere on the box or on the web site where I ordered.
The printer has actually functioned maybe half of the time that we've owned it. Two on-site service calls later, and we're still having problems:
In contrast, our HP laserjet has NEVER missed a beat. Look I know this is not a representative sample or anything, but there are clearly DESIGN flaws with this printer and it should not be on the market. Even after multiple service calls it does not work.
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.
Because my monitor is too heavy to bring on the train. And there's no plugs.
I guess I could tape a printout to the monitor, and put the monitor on a cart of some kind... Oh wait, we don't want to print.
I guess I could read the pdf and commit it to memory. D'oh, but another person can't read my mind (at least since I lined my toque with tinfoil).
Well, I'm out of ideas...
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
I'm telling you man, it's the printer of the future! You don't have to replace ink! It tells you when your printing has start, and finished through an excellent system of horrible screeching! You can buy a box of paper and never have to reload a tray! Plus, you get alot of extra strips of paper with the perforated tracks, which you can use to make nests for some of the local fauna!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
Yes, I'm serious. This court ruling makes me very happy.
... that might get their attention.
Why? The DMCA is an unjust law, and as someone wiser than I once said, the best way to get an unjust law struck down is to vigorously enforce it.
Joe and Jane Sixpack don't care about some Russian company's software or some professors speach. They probably aren't even aware of them. But if they can't get cheap ink cartriges anymore
From a Businessweek article: 'More important, Hewlett-Packard (HPQ ), which dominates both the printer and the $7 billion toner market, has no intention of following Lexmark's course. "We believe in customer choice," says Pradeep Jotwani, the senior vice-president who heads HP's lucrative imaging-supplies business. "If they want to buy from remanufacturers, that's fine. It's our job to make them not want to."'
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
I subvert Lexmark's plans by refilling my old toner carts with stuff from this vendor. While it's somewhat more difficult a process than just installing a new cart, I save over $150 with each refill.
Not affiliated with TonerRefillKits.com, just a happy customer. Don't be put off by their crappy website - the stuff ships out quick, is fairly priced, and works as advertised.
Although I've not been at SCC for over 6 years, I must commend SCC on their uncanny ability to reverse-engineer ANYTHING related to printer cartidges. While I was there HP released a cartridge purported to be impossible to open (5Si), therefore impossible to recondition. These guys immediately manufactured a machine designed to cut them open without harm, and all the parts to refit it. Copyright infringement is not something I would accuse them of, and being extremely good at what they do should not be against the law.
"Straddling the sword of technology..."
Whatever printer I get now, it won't be a Lexmark.
I just called Lexmark on their toll-free phone number to tell them how despicable I thought this lawsuit was. I told them that, unless it was dropped, I would never purchase another Lexmark product nor would I recommend their products to clients or colleagues. If you feel that way, call them:
In the U.S., their phone number is:
1-800-LEXMARK (1-800-539-6275)
Hours:
Mon - Fri
9am - 9pm EST
Saturday
12pm - 6pm
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?"