Slashdot Mirror
Lexmark's DMCA-Abuse Case Coming To An End
Adama writes "Lexmark is dead in the water with their hopes to use the DMCA to force their customers to buy their over-priced toner. Their request for another hearing has been denied. Ars has
an especially great write-up on this." (See this earlier story for more background on Lexmark's lock-in attempt.)
The DMCA is shot down in the court in other copyright related matters.
I know, I know, downloading music isn't quite like manufacturing your own cartridge for another company's printer, but at least this proves that the DMCA can't shield everything.
The initial price of printers will increase, and the corresponding cost of cartridges will decrease. This is a good outcome; the razor-markup model has always been a bit dishonest. Now price and cost will be more closely aligned, so partially-informed consumers will be able to make better purchasing decisions.
It's better for the manufacturers too, because their competition won't be doing it either. They no longer need to "keep up with the Joneses" and engage in shady pricing.
It would be interesting to know which has cost Lexmark more:
1. Loss of potential future revenue because competitors will now be able to sell replacement cartridges
2. The cost of paying the lawyers for the case, or
3. Loss of revenue because of the many people recommending against Lexmark printers ever since the lawsuit began (regardless of outcome).
I'm betting #3, and that the effect will persist for years from now. I, like you, will not buy Lexmark printers anymore, and have not for several years. I recommend against them when ever people ask, and I explain to them why. Yes, other printer companies gouge you for printer supplies too, but Lexmark has achieved unusual lows by attempting to apply the DCMA to sustain their anti-competitive desires.
Does anyone know what the status of the DeCSS lawsuits are, and whether this applies? I would also love to see this applied to other things.
But wouldn't this have other implications as well? The notion that a work that is designed merely as a means to function is not copyrightable may have implications for the GPL, would it not? How much code is copyrighted and protected under the GPL that was designed only with function in mind, and nothing else?
What about the code that SCO claims ownership of? Even if it existed, could they in fact have copyright over it, given this ruling?
Sadly, I don't think the average Joe cares about being screwed over. They have been brain-washed to look for rock-bottom prices. If Lexmark can find a way to sell a similar printer to the competitors for $2 - $5 less, most US drone-shoppers will eat it up.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
I got sick and tired of having to pay so much for cartridges because I am still a college student and printing out even 50 pages worth of lecture notes and slides can take out around 1/8 of many of those carts. So I paid $150 for a Brother laser printer and it took me 1.5 school years to go through 1 single toner cartridge. Amazing isn't it?
The scary part is that I tell people about this, how all they have to do is sacrifice color and they can go at least 1 school year without paying $20-$30 per cartridge. For my HL-1440, not exactly a high end piece of equipment, a new toner cart costs only $70.00. Even if it were $100.00 it would still be worth the cost. What does it say about America that these college kids, many of whom do in fact have to pay for their own supplies can't be bothered to put down $140-$200 now for a new laser printer so that they can save 3-5x that in at least 1 fulltime school year of printing?
Having had this now for going on 2 years and it still works well, I just don't understand why people who don't NEED color printers opt for the much more expensive inkjet. Most printing is black and white and you can save hundreds of dollars, enough to buy your laser printer several times over, if you get the right model because the toner cartridge it comes with can do at least a few thousand pages. I know I got at around 4,000-5,000 pages out of my first toner cartridge.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
What's unfortunate about this is Lexmark plays the 'Razor Blade Game', a business model where you "don't make money selling razors - give the razors away. Make your money selling BLADES". Lexmark goes by this business model, selling dirt cheap printers. Not just inkjets - they also make laser printers. And then charge a small fortune for the ink or toner, and give you very little of it in each cart. One salesman I know used to joke that "you get more ink in a ballpoint pen than comes with a Lexmark printer". This business model turns sour when your competition (easily) undercuts your (inflated) ink cart prices. The trajedy of this is the consumer usually realizes they are not getting nearly the deal they thought they were until after they've plunked down the money for the printer and their first few replacement ink carts. At that point you have to ask yourself if it's really worth it to chuck your new printer and go buy another one just to "save a few bucks on ink". But then over time those bucks add up easily to more than the price of a new HP or Epson printer.
I'm quite relieved that the DMCA has not proven to assist them in their consumer-lock-in attempts.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
What happened to the old days when the customer was king and great customer service was the way to do business.
People are too cheap to *pay* for customer service.
But don't think Lexmark is unique. Back in the typewriter days it was common place to offer low price typewriters but only supply carbon ribbons and charge an arm and a leg for them rather than the fabric ribbons that lasted longer and could be reinked.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
No offence intended, but going for #3 is blinkered geek naivity. Even if a large proportion of Slashdotters boycott Lexmark for this reason, it's the old "mistaking your peer group for a typical cross-section" mistake. I doubt socially-aware geeks make up *that* much of Lexmark's customer base (*) and the stupid sheep that *do* probably don't even know (or care) what the DMCA is.
/.er has probably figured out that Lexmarks are *not* cheap when you factor in consumables, and will avoid them regardless of Lexmark's DMCA abuse.
Sorry, but it's #1.
(*) Especially since the average
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
"What happened to the old days when the customer was king and great customer service was the way to do business."
I believe that there are a number of interlocking and paradoxical reasons that customer service has turned to crap. In many cases customers now have tremendous choices of what to spend their money on, but have lost any real choice of where to spend their money. At one time people bought their goods at a huge variety of mom and pop grocery stores, bakeries, pharmacies, deli's, appliance stores, radio & TV stores, office supply stores, hardware stores, book stores, newsstands, restaurants, lumber yards, clothing stores, dry goods stores, gas stations, and so on. The owners and management of these mom and pop stores were close to their customers and the loss of a relatively small number of customers could cause financial hardship for the store. Now, most stores are huge operations that sell a very broad range of goods and there is a smaller choice of stores in a given trading area. Home improvement stores have put hardware stores, paint stores, and lumber yards out of business. Discount stores and supermarkets have put many other stores out of business. The sheer size of these mega store corporations cushions the effects of unhappy customers. This cushioning effect caused by the huge size of these corporations and the fact that the dissatisfaction results in customer churn between the available stores, not the net loss of customers. If things get too bad, stores can be hurt (Kmart) and manufacturers can get into trouble (Chrysler). These large, sophisticated , legally savvy stores and manufacturers (or whatever they are, they don't actually make anything anymore) have the ability to declare bankruptcy, close a few stores or warehouses, lay off employees, get new financing; and keep abusing customers. If a mom and pop owned store or factory declared bankruptcy, mom and pop went out of business and lost their livelihood; the desire to survive was a great incentive to satisfy and retain customers. When stores and manufacturers no longer have an incentive to satisfy customers and investors demand that the maximum short term profit be squeezed out of the operation, customers may as well just bend over and smile.