Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Copyright Office Rules Against Lexmark

Posted by timothy on from the bout-time dept.

SparkyTWP writes "'The United States Copyright Office has ruled in favour of Static Control Components, of Sanford, N.C., saying that its microchips do not contravene the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.' This was in regard to SCC making microchips that imitated Lexmark's in remanufactured printer cartridges. It appears Lexmark won't be able to do anything about third-party cartridges."

5 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. Telling quote by wrinkledshirt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Lexmark filed its suit against SCC in December, 2002, saying the DMCA shields itself from competition from the remanufacturing industry."

    Could there be a more appropriate quote that shows how the DMCA is ultimately an anti-competition and anti-capitalist tool?

    --

    --------
    Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...

  2. I have a Lexmark printer ... by GFW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and I just needed a new cartridge (black). This was my first replacement, and what I discovered was that in ordinary retail channels, you can't buy third party. You have to go to the web for that (which means you have to plan ahead). I hope this ruling makes third party cartidges more available, but I suspect that Lexmark has leverage over typical places like Office Max (Don't sell third party ink, or you can't sell our printers).

    1. Re:I have a Lexmark printer ... by swordboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, it is the other way around. Places like Best Buy and OfficeMax enjoy the healthier margins on the brand-name ink. Heck - they even get the printer makers to omit the USB cable so that they can charge $20 for a part.

      A while ago (when USB printers first became the dominant style), I had some real fun. I loaded up a cart with thousands of dollars worth of computer stuff (that I was legitimately going to purchase) and a printer was part of it. When I found out that the *cheapest* USB cable in the store would cost me $20, I just left the salesmen standing there with their thumbs in their asses.

      I ordered a *hundred* USB cables for a dollar and I keep them in my trunk. Now, Best Buy is a necessity for me at times because it is convenient. Whenever I go, I stop by the printer aisle and give a cable or two away to anyone who mich need one. It saves them $20 and makes me feel a little better about actually spending my money at such a crooked store.

      The interesting thing is that Lexmarks are sold *with* a USB cable at places like RiteAid and other convenience stores.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  3. Justice... by Ibix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nice. It's been said before here - the courts usually do the right thing, you just need the staying power (read: money) to get there.

    I liked the quote at the end:

    "We are examining the documents and devoting a large amount of time with our economists and attorneys to calculate the damages that we feel we are entitled to from Lexmark because of their serious misdeeds," SCC CEO Ed Swartz said about the ruling.

    I read that as "My turn now..."

    I

  4. Similar case by Sowbug · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The facts sound roughly similar to Sega v. Accolade, a 1992 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case in which Sega (whom you all know) sued Accolade, who made Sega Genesis-compatible games without obtaining a license to do from from Sega.

    Sega sued the crap out of them, alleging among other things trademark infringement. Basically, the Genesis console has a bit of code in the bootloader that checks that the game cartridge has the word "SEGA" in a particular location. That triggers a display that says "PRODUCED BY OR UNDER LICENSE FROM SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD" for a few seconds on the screen.

    Sega was trying to be clever. If you manufactured a game cartridge without the "SEGA" code, it wouldn't run. And if you manufactured one with it, then you caused the display to appear. And if that statement was false (because you hadn't actually obtained a license), Sega could sue you for trademark infringement! Hehehehe.

    The court told Sega to get a life. Trademarks are a limited monopoly allowing the holder exclusive use of certain aspects of words, pictures, or phrases. They certainly can't be used to tie monopoly purchases to nonprotected things, thereby extending the limited monopoly to them. If you could, then every manufacturer would have monopolies on everything they manufactured, as well as every replacement part, or compatible product, etc. etc. etc. They'd simply manufacture a patented, copyrighted, or trademarked doodad and then make sure that their entire product depended on that item to operate.

    This sounds like what Lexmark was trying to do -- they had some sort of computer chip that verified that things were legit, and then they sued anyone who needed to copy that chip in order to make replacement parts. The lesson from Sega v. Accolade is: don't do this.