DMCA Limited by Sixth Circuit Appeals Court

katharsis83 writes "Ars Technica and others are reporting that the Sixth Circuit Court has ruled against Lexmark in their lawsuit against a generic ink manufacturer. Here is a link to the ruling (EFF Website)."

Comments

How fast can one say...

[Pig Hogger]

DUPE?????

Really fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's only two stories down in the YRO section.

Promising Ruling In Lexmark DMCA Case

Game consoles' logo lockouts

[Anonymous Coward]

This also resolves a long-standing problem with game consoles. In order for disks for certain consoles to boot, they must contain copyrighted code and trademarked logos on the disk, which are then displayed on the screen... This should resolve that issue.

Not that this matters anyway, as all consoles from this point on will go the way of the Xbox and use public-key digital signatures.

Melissa

Re:Game consoles' logo lockouts

[Anonymous Coward]

That was already resolved in court years and years ago. Look up "Sega vs. Accolade". Trademark traps ("you can't make interoperable software without violating our trademark! Gotcha!") aren't legally sound in the US.

Wow

[Lord Kano]

Just Four Hours Forty Five minutes since this was first posted.

I understand a Dupe from 5 months ago, but come on now.

LK

Re:Great news.

[wo1verin3]

I spent $125cdn on an Epson Style Photo R200.

2 months later spent $112cdn on new ink.

Re:Bloody PDFs

[morbuz]

Istall the TargetAlert extension for Firefox.
That would have shown you a small pdf icon after the url.

http://www.bolinfest.com/targetalert/

Re:Great news.

[Monkelectric]

And lexmark is by far the worst abuser of this business model. Let me tell you a story:

I went to my friends house one day and he had a *STACK* of lexmark printers new in the box. I said, "what the hell could you possibly do with 5 printers?" he replies, "I got them on sale for 19.99 each. Thats half the price of ink." He just chucked the printers in the trash after he used the ink they came with.

Second story, I was at a computer store in southern california here -- and they had lexmark printers for 9.99! No ink! Ink costs, 32$ per cartridge (you need a color and a black and white). Holy crap :)

I got sick of the ink game. I bought a HP Laserjet 4m+ (the last of the *REALLY* beefy HP printers) for 75$ used. Ive had it for an entire year and haven't used up the toner cartridge it came with.

Is this anything like..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

This:

Posted by michael on 10-26-04 16:45
from the morning-in-america dept.
EvanKai writes "Jason Schultz writes, "This just in --- Static Control Corp. has won its appeal against Lexmark over the right to produce after-market replacement cartridges for Lexmark printers." You can find a PDF of the ruling here and more about the case on EFF's site." It's important to note that the case is not even close to finished; this was just a ruling on whether Static Control would be enjoined (prevented) from selling their replacement cartridges while the suit proceeded. The original court issued an injunction, and the Appellate Court felt that Static Control had a good chance of success in court and overturned the injunction. The case will proceed and in the end, either side may win.

Link to the EFF website...

[rbullo]

...so that I can't read it.

Seriously. Yahoo's web filter blocks EFF.org. And a slate of others that it shouldn't block(such as the Libertarian Party's website).

Re:Bought the game...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, your 'anology' isn't even entirely accurate. The box of every piece of software I have has, in nice legable black print text telling you that you have to accept a license agreement before you use the product:

For example:

"You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept thte terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund."

Here's another one; this one even tells you where you can read the eula ahead of time:

"You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. The product is license as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund. A copy of the product License Agreement is available for review at www.microsoft.com/office/eula. Product activation is required for continued use of the product, and may be done by Internet or telephone. Instructions and Microsoft's privacy policy will be detailed to the user duing launch of the product."

Hey, I'm 3 for 3 ... how about this one:

"The product uses technological measure for copy protection -- you will not be able to use the product if you do not fully comply with the product activation procedures. Product activation procedures and Microsoft's privacy statements will be described during the launch of the product. For installation and use on one computer (see License Agreement for license terms). You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund."

Another:

"You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund. Guest operating systems licensed separately."

Well crap, I seem to have run out of software boxes. The text for all of these was in a large readable bold font. Way bigger than the system requirements. In every case, the text was located on the back of the box.

I recommend you try reading the box next time you buy some software. If you don't like the fact that they tell you there are additional terms and restrictions that you have to agree to before you complete the sale, then don't buy the package. Nobody forces you to agree to the terms, you always have the opportunity to read them before the license takes effect, and you always have the ability to terminate the agreement.

Re:Bought the game...

[cpt kangarooski]

Nothing has upheld in court software liscensing.

What precisely are you basing that on?

But whether a particular license is generous or restrictive, a simple two-party contract is not "equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright" and therefore may be enforced.

Pro-CD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3D 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).

The Court finds that the license agreements are enforceable contracts under both California and Missouri law. California courts have enforced end user license agreements, which are valid under California law. See Adobe Sys. Inc. v. One Stop Micro, Inc., 84 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1089-93 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (end user license agreement valid under California law); Hotmail Corp. v. Van$Money Pie, Inc., No. C-98-20064, 1998 WL 388389, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (applying California law, plaintiff likely to prevail on breach of contract claim regarding clickwrap agreement). Cf. Softman Prod. Co. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 171 F.Supp.2d 1075, 1087-88 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (software reseller was not bound by EULA because it had never assented to the terms and court did not rule on validity of shrinkwrap agreements in general).

Even if Missouri law applied, the license agreement would be enforceable. Missouri has implemented the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC provides that "a contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract."11 MO. REV. STAT. 400.2-204(1) (2000). "An agreement sufficient to constitute a contract for sale may be found even though the moment of its making is undetermined." MO. REV. STAT. 400.2-204(2) (2000). The defendants assert that the licenses are not enforceable because they add additional terms under Mo. Rev. Stat. 400.2-207, 19 which are to be construed as proposals for additions to the contract. Defendants state that the EULAs and TOU are additional terms which they rejected. Defendants contend that is unfair for them to pay $49.99 for the games and then be unable to install them or access Battle.net without assenting to the EULA and TOU.

The Court finds the EULAs and TOU are enforceable under the UCC. First, the defendants did not purchase the Blizzard software, rather they purchased a license for the software. A sale consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer. Mo. Rev. Stat. 400.2-106(1) (2000). When defendants purchased the games, they bought a license to use the software, but did not buy the software. Defendants' argument parallels the "first sale doctrine," although defendants do not use this term.

Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway, 2004 E.D. Mo. LEXIS 20369 (Sept. 30, 2004).

Looks to me like they often are enforced. Sure, there's Klocek, Specht, maybe a few others, but they don't seem to be the dominant trend these days.

Lasermonks: Low Ink Prices

[talon_262]

If you don't have a problem with low prices on ink cartridges while supporting a group of Catholic monks in Wisconsin, go here the next time you need to buy an ink cartridge. I've ordered a couple of times from them and haven't had any problems with the ordering process or with their products. With them, I get my Epson Stylus C60 cartridges for about 1/4-1/3 the price of the Epson OEM cartridges at local stores.

They also seem to think very highly of /., because they carry a /. banner at the bottom of their home page referring back to a thread about them here earlier this year (in which I had originally heard about them).

A great quote

[Dachannien]

From the ruling:

"Franklin Computer, 714 F.2d 1240, and Formula International, 725 F.2d 521, involved copies of Apple's operating system program -- a program whose size and complexity is to the Toner Loading Program what the Sears Tower is to a lamppost."

Also, what's really great about this ruling is that Lexmark effectively shot themselves in the foot. By making the bytecode of the TLP a prerequisite for making an ink cartridge work (through the use of either a checksum or a CRC, it's not entirely clear which), Lexmark itself makes the TLP uncopyrightable in the context of using that bytecode as a key for making the ink cartridge usable. That is, even if the code *could* be written some other way for the purpose of performing the same computations that the TLP does, it only works if the checksum requirement is met, meaning that the code pretty much has to be the way it is. (See pages 11-12 in the ruling.)

Re:Yeah, fuck the environment!

[TykeClone]

or c) future ink sales.

Re:Insightful??

[typobox43]

which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Congress may propose amendments, but they cannot ratify them. This is left to the state legislatures. An amendment cannot come into being through an act of Congress alone. As a side note, that passage of the Constitution also allows for ratifying conventions to be held in the states. However, this method has only been used once - to ratify the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition (the 18th Amendment).