U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lexmark Case

wallykeyster writes " The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Lexmark's petition for certiorari in its long and bitter battle against North Carolina-based Static Control Components (SCC). For those out of the loop on this one, Lexmark tried to lock in consumers and lock out competition by adding code to their printers and toner cartridges so that only Lexmark toners would work. SSC defeated their monopolist technology and began selling the off-brand chips to aftermarket toner cartridge makers. As discussed here earlier, in mid-February Lexmark was dealt a defeat by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, who denied Lexmark's request for a rehearing. Other related threads here, here, here, here, and here." The story is on the AP Newswire as well.

Comments

Lexmark is no Nintendo

[AKAImBatman]

It sounds like Lexmark thought they could pull a Nintendo with their authorization chip. Only, there happens to be a few things wrong with their approach:

• Nintendo had a patent on their authentication chip. This afforded them significantly more protection than the DMCA clauses that Lexmark is attempting to use.
  
• Nintendo licensed the chip to third parties, thus negating a need for reverse engineering. Lexmark is attempting to erect an artificial barrier against competitors, which a court is unlikely to find very sporting. (That's why you *always* look to be in a market with a set of *natural* barriers. Then no one can claim that you're being anti-competitive.)
  
• The DMCA does not completely rule out reverse engineering. It just reigns it in to a razor thin line. The specific clauses actually work against Lexmark due to the issue that no other method has been made available for interoperability.

The specific clause from the DMCA is thus:

(f) Reverse Engineering. -

* (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
* (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

* (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

* (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

I'm not a lawyer (duh), but my reading of this says that the case of Compaq reverse engineering the PC BIOS would have also been legal, as long as they didn't publish their findings. (Which I believe that they did.)

It's important to understand that Congress intended the DMCA to protect digital anti-theft devices, not stop users from using their own software. The issue at hand is that the law was written before the full implications of computer technology and copyrights were fully understood. The bright side is that the actions of the MPAA, RIAA, and Adobe have gone quite a ways toward demonstrating how the market planned to abuse the law. While I doubt that we'll see the DMCA repealed, I seriously doubt we'll be seeing any new restrictions any time soon.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

Reverse engineering is totally legal in the EU and NZ and other countries. To prevent monopolistic tactics and promote interop and openness.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

It's important to understand that Congress intended the DMCA to protect digital anti-theft devices

Nonsense, they intended to trouser large sums of cash; the consequences for the public was never their concern.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

The scope of the DMCA appears to have been substantially narrowed by a case decided by the Federal Circuit. I'm not a lawyer (2 more months to go), but I think the Chamberlain Group case is a more important decision in terms of DMCA law, than Lexmark. Though the concurrence by Judge Merritt in the 6th Circuit decision in Lexmark goes much farther than the majority opinion did.

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004). at Findlaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=fed&navby=case&no=041118

Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. at findlaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/0354 00p.pdf

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[nuggetboy]

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but doesn't para 3 specifically allow the person who has acquired the information in paras 1 and 2 to publish those findings? From what you've pasted here, I see hardly any prohibitve language except the "as long as it does not constitute infringement" stuff.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[AKAImBatman]

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that paragraph 3 is a very tricky restriction to meet. The information you provide to others may violate standard copyright law (e.g. The PC BIOS calls may have been considered a unique work unto themselves, thus a copyrightable thing.), or may violate other restrictions of the DMCA, especially as they relate to the details of the encryption device.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[AKAImBatman]

Nonsense, they intended to trouser large sums of cash; the consequences for the public was never their concern.

Have you ever watched a game show where you look at the contestants and yell, "I could do WAY better! This guy's an idiot! Where do they find these people!" I'm willing to bet, however, that you yourself wouldn't do much better if you were in their place. You have the benefit of your comfortable living room, no pressure, and nothing at stake. But put you up on stage and you may have the same difficulties that you found so offensive in the contestant.

It's the same with Congress-critters. Believe it or not, many of them really are trying to do the right thing. That doesn't mean that they don't occasionally abuse their position (*cough*Post Stamps Scandal*cough*), but it does mean that they're not as inherently evil as everyone makes them out to be. They're just people trying to make the best decision they can on the limited information they have. That's why it can help a lot if you write your congress-person. An overwhelming degree of well thought out, public opinion can sway the opinion of a representative. Similarly, regular letters about a topic can sway opinion if a relevant bill hits the floor. These letters can also provide your representatives with insight that can be very helpful during debates.

So, instead of complaining like a backseat driver, write your congress-critter and help them to understand your opinions.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[megalomang]

I am not sure the patent on the authentication chip had anything to do with it whatsoever.

Don't forget these other important facts:

* Nintendo is using their DRM technology to protect copyrighted software. Lexmark is using it to lock out competitors from using ink, which is not copyrightable.
* A gaming console is a mechanism for playing games. The value of a game is contained on the copyrighted media. The game console checks for violations prior to playing the game. A printer is not simply a mechanism for using ink. The value of the printer is not in the ink, and there is no reason for the printer to check for copyright violations prior to using ink.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever watched a game show where you look at the contestants and yell, "I could do WAY better! This guy's an idiot! Where do they find these people!" I'm willing to bet, however, that you yourself wouldn't do much better if you were in their place. You have the benefit of your comfortable living room, no pressure, and nothing at stake. But put you up on stage and you may have the same difficulties that you found so offensive in the contestant.

Being "up on stage" won't make me forget basic facts and logic.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we will soon invade you, and sort you out!

Reverse engineering American commercial secrets is no longer allowed in Iraq!

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

"Believe it or not, many of them really are trying to do the right thing. That doesn't mean that they don't occasionally abuse their position (*cough*Post Stamps Scandal*cough*), but it does mean that they're not as inherently evil as everyone makes them out to be."

No, just power hungry, bought and paid for, politicians. Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely and all...

The real ones people should be mad at are the damned lobbiests. I believe that any "critter" recieving any lobbying "gifts" should have to report it as income and recuse themselves from votes on that topic. To say politicians are "ethical enough" to overcome bias by the money thrown at them is simply fooling yourself.

"So, instead of complaining like a backseat driver, write your congress-critter and help them to understand your opinions."

Which does absolutely no good unless you have the funds to back it up. Look at the letter writing campaign against the Iraq war that happened. Did that stop it? The answer is that the war industrial complex has MUCH more funds to back up their support.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Fareq]

Facts and logic are fine. But have you ever read through any of these big laws? DMCA isn't that bad -- only about 70 pages of moderately-comprehendable legalese -- but try bigger boys like the PATRIOT act... it reads like diff output...

Congressmen hear arguments from both sides that frequently have little to do with the law, have extreme pressure to bow to their party's wishes (which means party donors too, on occasion).

I'm not saying I support the spineless congressman party hack. Nor am I absolving them of guilt in the case of the DMCA. I am simply saying, I know that it's harder than it looks, and I try not to hate them as strongly as their actions occasionally make me want to.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Phiu-x]

The value of the printer is not in the ink, and there is no reason for the printer to check for copyright violations prior to using ink.

Its the other way around : The majority of the consumer market is mainly geared toward selling (or even giving for free) the printer for a very low price and then making money on selling the ink cartridge at an over infatuated price. I can understand why not having the exclusivity to sell the ink might be critical for theses companies.

Whatever mean they use, they sure will try to have that exclusivity.

I'd say the value is in the ink and therefore, its to Lexmark to prove to the court that the critical part of their busniess come from this exclusivity.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[MSMud]

The value of the printer is not in the ink, and there is no reason for the printer to check for copyright violations prior to using ink.

Have you checked the prices on printers/printer ink lately? The printer companies make way more money on the ink than they do on the printer itself. They shouldn't be allowed to limit their competition in this way, but obviously the value of the printer is in the ink. Why else would they be doing this in the first place?

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[AKAImBatman]

Your logic is faulty, young coward.

No, just power hungry, bought and paid for, politicians. Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely and all...

How are Congressional representatives in any way endowed with absolute power? Depending on which half we're talking, you've got 100-435 people with exactly the same power as yourself! The only time that a representative has any sort of special powers is when they are explicitly granted by an act of congress.

The closest thing to absolute power in our government is the President of the United States. And his powers are crippled in several places by Congress and the Supreme Court.

To say politicians are "ethical enough" to overcome bias by the money thrown at them is simply fooling yourself. [...] Look at the letter writing campaign against the Iraq war that happened. Did that stop it?

Who paid Congress to start a war? You can invoke the mystical "them", but unless you can show actual money, you're just waving your arms.

Allow me to explain the purpose of the organization of Federalist Rupublic over a true Democracy: In a true Democracy, the people are the leaders. This means that their collective will is *always* carried out, even if that will is counter-productive to the existence of the civilization. A common example of this is when a Democracy bankrupts itself by voting the treasury into its own pockets.

In a Republic, the representatives are there to represent the people's will, but only to the degree where the will of the masses aligns with the good of the country. In cases where the will of the people would be detrimental to the good of the country, then it is the DUTY of the representative to ignore the will of his constituents.

The answer is that the war industrial complex has MUCH more funds to back up their support.

Did you ever consider that there might have also been write ins that supported the war? Remember, Bush was reelected for a second term. That tends to suggest that the "will of the people" may not align with the fantasy that you have created.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[stanmann]

Yeah.. thats why in a recent survey public speaking beat out dying as the greatest fear.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[timeOday]

I don't think I could do better, because it's almost impossible to get into office without influence peddling. The system allows it, and it generates money which is a great advantage in getting elected. Therefore the system selects for candidates who are willing to do it.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[orderb13]

It's so hard that most of them don't even read the bills they pass?? Come on, get a clue. If they really cared (and I will admit some of them do) they would at least try to NOT make it so damn obvious that they are fucking us over at every oppurtunity to line their own pockets.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Lifewish]

I think he meant the value to the customer, in which case it does make sense, although I'm not sure it's 'good' legal theory.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[AKAImBatman]

Ah yes, and a Federalist Republic instead bankrupts itself by voting the treasury only into the pockets of the rich via massive tax breaks. That's a lot better.

Come on Mr Sheep, tell us another one...

You know, that's a rather rude statement. Didn't your parents teach you any manners?

And for the record, the US treasury has been happily voted into the pockets of the percieved "poor", just as much as it has been voted into the pockets of the rich. (In fact, direct compensation has gone to the "poor" far more often than it has gone to the rich. Examples of this include welfare, medicare, unemployment, stimulis packages, and congressional pork.) Federalist Republics are like any other form of government: They are not perfect. What the FR attempts to acheive, however, is to provide enough balance to absorb poor desisions without a collapse of the government.

The example of voting the treasury into the pockets of the people is a common one given by textbooks. But another common one is the failure to provide for common defense. In a democracy, the voters can end up debating far too long to provide for the defense of their country. That's why the US President has command over the the military for defense, but it requires an act of congress to declare war.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[megalomang]

That was closer to what I meant :) sorry, that was an ambiguous statement that made sense to me at the time.

What I meant was the intellectual property value is not in the ink, it is in the printer. There is no intellectual property being violated when a customer puts counterfeit ink in the printer, whereas one cannot necessarily say the same about a counterfeit disc being played in a Nintindo console.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can't do why are they still there? Would you stay in a job you know you can't do properly?

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[arose]

Value != price.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[KillShill]

akayouareashill.

yet another shill exposed on /.

1 down, , many to go.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[pete6677]

Who you should really blame are the voters (or lack thereof). Political contributions and lobbying efforts can only get someone exposure; they can't get elected without votes. The only reason congressmen can be bought is because the public allows it, since they won't vote responsible people in.

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

So, instead of complaining like a backseat driver, write your congress-critter and help them to understand your opinions.

And, if that doesn't work and you really think you can do better, then dammit, run for the office yourself!

Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, except when "accidents" happen with voting machines, and when people are turned away for whatever reasons.

Oh that's classic

[hubang]

Let's hear it for the courts!

Not many times You'll ever be able to say that in your lifetimes.

Re:Oh that's classic

[Martin Blank]

I say it quite often. Even in things like the medical marijuana case, I applauded the stance of Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas, who felt that allowing this to be upheld meant that Congress could justify anything under the Commerce Clause.

The courts are the one branch that I generally trust to do the Right Thing, though I am on occasion dismayed by their actions. Can't win all the time.

Yay!

[Benanov]

Well, that's another tooth pulled from the DMCA. Unfortunately the process of judicial review is slow...

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

SYDGSG8S98TD9D6 S9GSDGDGFD

SG8DTD9297GSBISIDFIDSGFUDGFD

Re:Yay!

[Pakaran2]

Note that this does not say anything about the DMCA. The DMCA has not been struck down or restricted. The Court refused to hear an appeal, thereby letting a decision stand which prevented a specific company from collecting in a specific lawsuit about its toner cartridges.

The Court refuses the vast majority of petitions it gets. It may simply feel that it is too busy, and the case was likely decided correctly. This does not mean that any other parties can ignore the DMCA, and I hope the slashdot population realizes that.

It would be nice if the DMCA were struck down, but that did not happen here.

Re:Yay!

[MindStalker]

Well it does create a standing the you cannot be successfully sued due to reverse engineering for interoperability to sell a competing product that does not break copyright.

Re:Yay!

[Pakaran2]

True. But the point is that the Court gave no information about exactly what grounds it refused cert on. It could be that the case looked correct, and they had a big backlog (they always do, and hear maybe 1% in general).

That said, this should give confidence to refurbished cartridge manufacturers, and maybe printer makers will have to move to a new business model (such as selling both printers and cartridges at a reasonable profit margin, or accepting cartridges for recycling themselves).

Re:Yay!

[eyegone]

Well it does create a standing the you cannot be successfully sued due to reverse engineering for interoperability to sell a competing product that does not break copyright.

The word you're looking for is "precedent," and it only applies in that circuit.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you're looking for is "precedent," and it only applies in that circuit.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of the USA's common law is that precedents from other jurisdictions and circuits do have some weight, so long as there aren't conflicting native precedents. Although, less than one a native one would, of course.

Re:Yay!

[ThatsNotFunny]

Another tooth pulled from the DMCA doesn't matter. Congress (with the help of corporate bribes and payoffs) is skilled in reconstructive dentistry.

Re:Yay!

[InvalidError]

They do not need a new business model, they only need to go back to the model where they used to sell good printers and decently priced cartridges... instead of crappy disposable printers that cost less than their replacement cartridges.

Lets hear it for the Supremes

[tomhudson]

Lexmark: All your printers are belong to us!

The Supremes: p0wned!

For once, the men in dresses get it right! Too bad it takes so long for them to bitch-slap someone.

Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes

[_Sharp'r_]

Of course, if you read the summary above, it was a District Court of Appeals, not the Supremes.... but that's probably asking too much of the slashdot audience, and it's not like you were the only one to make that mistake.

Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes

[dreamchaser]

Of course, if you read the actual article and paid attention to the summary, it was the Supremes that denied the recent petition for a writ of centorari...but that's probably asking too much of someone who has nothing positive to add to the thread so instead decides to nitpick (and get it wrong to boot).

Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes

[_Sharp'r_]

Was just about to reply to myself.

The summary conflicts with the headline and the article.

The Court of appeals rejected the appeal and the Supremes just refused to hear the case at all, ending it.

Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes

[dcsmith]

Of course, if you read the summary above, it was a District Court of Appeals, not the Supremes....

Yeah, I'd agree with you if it weren't for that inconvenient first sentence in the actual news article...

"The United States Supreme Court has rejected Lexmark's petition for certiorari, upholding Static Control's position against the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and copyright issues raised by Lexmark in connection with Static Control's sale of Lexmark compatible chips.

Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes

[tomhudson]

When SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, that's the end of it. Their decision to not hear the case is a legal decision.

So, no arguing in other courts that there is an appeal to SCOTUS pending ...

Most of us here "get it". We've been following SCO vs IBM, and snacking on GrokLaw for a few years now, if we didn't have a legal background before.

Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes

[wallykeyster]

As the submitter, I'm curious where you see conflict. I'm not above making mistakes, and I've certainly had the editors mangle my submissions, but I don't see anything wrong with this one.

Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of us here "get it".

That is a stretch. I guess the minority does most of the comment posting then.

We've been following SCO vs IBM, and snacking on GrokLaw for a few years now, if we didn't have a legal background before.

And I enjoy those surgery shows on cable TV, but I don't think you'd want me anywhere near your insides with a knife.

Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes

[tomhudson]

That is a stretch. I guess the minority does most of the comment posting then

Anyone with half a brain knows that when SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, its over. I haven't seen too many posts trying to say Lexmark gets another kick at the can.

And I enjoy those surgery shows on cable TV, but I don't think you'd want me anywhere near your insides with a knife.

So I guess you wouln't try to do a tracheotomy with a pen knife and a ballpoint in an emergency - better to let the poor sod die?

A lot of stuff isn't terribly complicated - mostly practice, practice, practice.

Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes

[flosofl]

So I guess you wouln't try to do a tracheotomy with a pen knife and a ballpoint in an emergency - better to let the poor sod die?

A lot of stuff isn't terribly complicated - mostly practice, practice, practice.

Um... You can practice on his throat. I'll just be waiting over here...

Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes

[_Sharp'r_]

Nothing to see here... move on... I'm just confused, confused, confused..... this has obviously been a bad article for me... you're fine.

Sorry.

I'm not above admitting when I'm wrong. Just mostly misread this one, apparently twice... I swear I remember the summary title and first line different the first time I read it to now... but apparently not. :)

Disposable printers - the solution?

[guyfromindia]

Perhaps someone could manufacture a disposable printer? Then, they dont have to worry about cartridges, etc.. In fact, I find it cheaper to buy a new printer than mess with cartriges (i.e. if I use the Manufacturer's cartridge - not after marktet fillers, etc).. Just a thought...

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[defkkon]

Buy Canon. I love their printers. In reviews, they typically fair better than most and are consitantly high performers.

Combine that with the fact that their cartridges are cheap. My S540 is an awesome printer for normal documents as well as borderless picture printing. The black ink cartridge is a mere $10. Can't beat it.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[goldspider]

More trash, that's just what we need!

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[NerdConspiracy]

If buying a new printer is indeed cheaper than buying cartriges, then you can turn any printer disposable by a very simple act of magic: toss it into the trash can after the ink runs out.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. There'll probably be a number of thriving third-party services that will buy back disused printers for refurbishing.

Admittedly, it's not a perfect solution, but what are the chances that they'll go back and start producing high quality printers that don't break?

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[Satan Dumpling]

I agree, I love my Canon F60.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=Mo delDetailAct&fcategoryid=124&modelid=7174
Lexmarks clog if you look at them funny. My Canon don't. Four separarate cartridges with no electronics in the cartridges, so cheap to replace.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[Junta]

There is a reason why it appears that way, they ship with an ink cartridge that is far from full.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[JPriest]

Some day some company is going to come out with a $300 printer that uses $5 ink cartrages and take over the market.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[BlueUnderwear]

In fact, I find it cheaper to buy a new printer than mess with cartriges

That's why nowadays, the cartridges that are in new printers are only one third full...

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[KrancHammer]

I was going to comment that this will probably make the price of Lexmark (and other brands as well) printers rise... but I don't know about you, I would very much rather pay more for the hardware (infrequent purchase) and much more less for the consumables (frequent purchase. This ruling, IMO, is a step in the right direction.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[compro01]

i love my i320. cheap printer ($79.99 with the $20 instant rebate) but it does a nice job of text (my normal use for it) and doesn't a pretty good job on photos (no one i'm shows one to can tell the differance between the copy and the original photo without looking at the back)

ink is $34 for both cartrages. much better than the lexmark piece that came with my old computer. fourty-five fracking dollars per cartrage. $90 for colour and black. robbery!

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[Greyfox]

If I were in the market for a printer I'd go the laser route. Toner's dry so it doesn't dry up and clog if you print something every 3 years like I do. I seem to recall that lasers are a lot less expensive per page to print than inkjets are, too, though I forget where I heard that. Last time I checked (About a year ago) you could get a PostScript level 3 laser printer starting around $500. PostScript is an easy set-up with Linux, is a nifty language and you don't have to worry about your printer manufacturer not supplying a driver for the next version of Windows if that's your OS of choice.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[bhtooefr]

That's not too bad for an inkjet...

I have a friend who really does treat inkjets like disposable printers. Whenever she runs out of ink, she simply goes to WalMart and buys a $30 Lexmark...

I tried telling her to go to Canon for inkjets, or get a laser, but that didn't work...

Myself, I've got a Minolta-QMS PagePro 1250W (B&W laser) and a Konica Minolta (build quality is better than the Minolta-QMS unit (same model) that it replaced after two days, but firmware quality is a LOT worse) magicolor 2300DL (color laser).

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[tritonic]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I actually like the overpriced cartridges printer manufacturers try to flog you. Why?

1. I can buy a very cheap injet printer, subsidised by the manufacturer.

2. I can then buy extremely cheap third party cartridges.

The thing about overpriced original cartridges is they really open up the market for competitors to produce cheap compatibles (if they can get around the lock-in code, of course). Do you really think Epson compatibles would be as ridiculously cheap as they are now if Epson had charged a sane price for their cartridges in the first place?

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[PeteDotNu]

When I switched from Windows to Linux, I found that my Lexmark X5250 combination scanner/inkjet printer wouldn't work any more. So I handed it down to my girlfriend and brought my trusty old HP 4L laser printer back into action.

I inherited it about four years ago, and I haven't had to replace the toner cartridge in all that time. That works out quite cheap per page, I can tell you.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[khrtt]

What does it take to fix it when it does clog? I have an HP, and that has the printer head in the cartridge, so there is no clogging problem. Then, on the other hand, the aftermarket ink truly sucks, and I have to buy the original cartridges for to get the print quality I want. Then, on the other other hand, I got my work to buy cartridges for me, so I don't care if they are expensive...

But enough about HP. How do you replace the printhead on the Canon?

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[the_crowbar]

If you only need occasional black and white then laser is indeed the best way to go. For moderate to high volume black and white laser is also the way to go. For economy laser is the way to go. Using some examples from work, the cost per page for bubblejet printers was ~$.10/page. Laser was ~$.02/page. Figures for personal use will be a bit different, but not that much. (I buy toner/ink in large quantity for work.)

To sum up, bubblejet only if you need color and often. For anything else laser is probably the better option. If you are like me and print 10 pages a year for personal use, beg work or go to Kinko's or some other printing establishment.

Cheers,
the_crowbar

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[karnal]

Most (if not all) Canons make it easy to replace the head.

1. Remove Ink Carts.
2. Move Lever.
3. Remove Print Head.

You can buy replacements - probably direct from canon. I've not seen any at any stores (not to say they don't exist...) but at least it's servicable. Epson, on the other hand, had me hopping pissed off because my perfectly good stylus 890 clogged all but the blue at one point... and replacing the head cost as much as a new printer. In addition, you had to basically sledge the printer to get the print head out - not very user servicable.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[Satan Dumpling]

Yeah, my Canon F60 printhead is like that, easy to get out.
When I was battling those godawful Lexmark cartridges, sometimes scrubbing with a q-tip and peroxide would unclog it.
You can also buy a bottle of print head cleaner to soak it in, assuming you can get the darn thing out. I'll take that as a vote against Epson...

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[rootofevil]

modern canon printers have what the call a "lifetime" printhead.

the modern (starting with the 950/850/550, possibly earlier) lineup does not have printheads which are available to the public. period. if the printhead assembly clogs you are at the mercy of whichever canon tech support monkey you get on the line.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[Vitriol Angst]

A disposable printer has already been made--it's called an Epson. I've had two, and I can't seem to get more than halfway through a cartridge before I need to replace it because it has dried out. I spend more time cleaning than printing (I print maybe once a month). I also don't seem to get decent prints until the third print on the expensive glossy paper.

I typically buy a printer based on ink cartridge cost. But that is not the only factor in the equation. So, I'll probably pay more money up front and get a Canon or a laser color printer. I'm pretty much sick of the bogus tricks the ink jet printer companies have been playing on customers.

Lexmark has only ruined their market for anyone savvy. After I heard of them trying to use DRMC tactics to ensure profits on their cartridges, I put them on my DO NOT BUY list.

I hope more consumers stay aware of abusive companies. Next on my list is WalMart, or companies that get goods from Saipan.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[KillShill]

you can thank those wonderful assholes who try to sell ink at 30-50 dollars a cartridge.

yeah, they make 1000 gallons of ink for a a dollar or 2 then try to sell it for 10 million.

when i see ink selling in stores for 5 bucks per gallon, i'll keep my current opinion.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[swv3752]

You can get Laser printers pretty darn cheap now. Samsung has one for $150 that is proudly proclaimed to work with Linux.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[Chris Brewer]

A blog article I read ages ago came up with a printer strategy, based on a 2400x1200 Lexmark printer that cost $35 (black ink refill $30, colour refill $33):

- buy the cheapest inkjet that comes with cartridges
- when the ink runs out, donate the printer to your local school and buy a new printer

You get a tax credit for the donation, the school gets near new equipment, and you save on ink.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[pipingguy]

Samsung's ML-1210 (a cheap laser printer from a few years back) is fairly famous for having paper feed problems, rendering it useless. And of course, the old cartridges don't work with the new designs.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[mjh49746]

Lexmarks are highly disposable printers. Here's how it works.

1. Use just once.

2. Realize you've been fucked.

3. Toss it out and get a real printer.

4. More $$$ down the drain.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[mjh49746]

On my Epson, there's a spongy spot where it goes to waste ink, er, I mean, clean the cartridge. Anyways, I let mine sit for almost a year after I used up all the ink first since I really don't do too much printing to begin with. After I finally got around to getting new ink, I decided to fire it up, put in the cartridges, and then before I let it purge, I take that spongy spot inside, (which was dried up solid) and soaked it with rubbing alcohol. Then I let the print head soak on that and purge itself a few times. Works great now. That's what I would do first before I yank out the print head, especially when you're off warranty anyway. Works for me on an Epson Stylus C62, but YMMV. Some people might not like them, but IMO, anything is better than a goddamned cheap assed Lexmark. I just figured that if the rubbing alcohol can remove the dried up ink stains on the damn thing when nothing else will, then it couldn't hurt to try it out with the spongy thing soaked and sitting on the print head and see what happens.

I'd like to thank whomever that left that link here a while back to http://lasermonks.com/ as it saved me big $$$.

Re:Disposable printers - the solution?

[zerbot]

They used to carry the print heads in stores, but I just had to replace one on a printer that hadn't been used in a long time, and had to order it, although you can get it from third parties. On this printer (a BJC-6000), the black and color print heads are separate, I had to replace the black one and it was about $35 (inksite.com). Retail stores don't carry them because they are very infrequent purchases.

I like Canons for that reason too.

Sounds legal....

[timtwobuck]

I don't see a reason this won't be uphelp, it doesn't seem reasonable that a company can say "you have to use my product x with my product y or use neither at all" and then try to quash a fair-market solution...

Granted, Apple says you have to use OSX on genuine or certified fake (wtf is that??) but if a solution comes up like PearPC does that mean that its against what Lexmark is fighting, or just violating the EULA?

Re:Sounds legal....

[m85476585]

Just tell buyers if voids the warranty to not use their ink.

Re:Sounds legal....

[AKAImBatman]

Granted, Apple says you have to use OSX on genuine or certified fake (wtf is that??) but if a solution comes up like PearPC does that mean that its against what Lexmark is fighting, or just violating the EULA?

You have to be careful here, because the law is full of interesting nuances. For example, when you purchase an ink cartrige you are purchasing the entire product, lot, stock, and barrel. No one can tell you what to do with it as long as you did not sign a contract and are not using it to break the law. This means that Lexmark cannot successfully sue you if you find a way to use the ink in a competitor's printer. Nor can they sue you if you want to take it apart and see what makes it tick.

Software, OTOH, is never sold in its entirety. The law recognizes that it is not a physical thing that can be taken away, and that copies can be made with impunity. As a result, all software is licensed. (Slight oversimplification, but hang with me here.) The basic terms amount to those provided by copyright law. But a software provider may optionally request that you sign/accept a license that places further restrictions on your ability to use the software. As long as those terms are not considered unilateral (i.e. only in the favor of one party) and that the user is considered to have agreed to the terms, the license is legal. This is the mechanism that allows Apple to prevent someone from running OS X on hardware other than Apple-sanctioned Macs.

Re:Sounds legal....

[ifwm]

"lot, stock, and barrel"

LOCK, stock and barrel. Used to refer to guns, as they were often sold piecemeal.

Now you know.

Re:Sounds legal....

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

How are EULAs not unilateral?

They don't grant me anything that copyright law does not.

Copyright law allows me to install and run the program, so I can fail to agree to the EULA and still have that right. Making the program run without clicking the button could mean you never agreed and the contract is unilateral anyway. A contract can't give you something you already have and use that to say it is not unilateral. "Consideration" (the legal term for what a party gets) must be something given to you that you didn't already have. I can't write a contract which requires you to pay me $50, gives you the right to live, and say you agreed by walking on the sidewalk in front of my house. EULAs try to do something equally ridiculous.

Unfortunately, some courts are ignoring the law.

Now the GPL, does give one extra rights not allowed by copyright. One need not agree to it to run GPL software (sane open source people will agree - some zealots will dispute this statement), but then one can't distribute or do anything not otherwise allowed by copyright law and fair use.

Re:Sounds legal....

[AKAImBatman]

How are EULAs not unilateral?

They don't grant me anything that copyright law does not.

Yes, they do. They grant you the right to use the software. Copyright law allows a copyright holder to determine the circumstances under which he will distribute his work. Simply adding terms such as, "I won't let you use this software unless you promise not to reverse engineer it and promise not to sue me," is not considered unilateral conditons. After all, the copyright holder doesn't have to distribute his work to you at all.

That being said, many court procedings are finding many common EULA terms to be unenforcable. For example, the bit of the contract that states that you will pay all legal costs in any court proceding is unlikey to be upheld by a judge if it's the copyright holder who's found to be in error.

Unfortunately, some courts are ignoring the law.

Nonsense. You just don't understand the law. Yes, sometimes courts make a bad decision. But that's why there are appeals courts and higher courts. Checks and balances. It may take a while, but most bad decisions are usually overturned.

For things that you personally consider bad decisions (but in all actuality are the law), may I suggest that you look to your nearest congress-critter for blame?

Re:Sounds legal....

[Anonymous Coward]

They grant you the right to use the software.

They already granted you that right at the cash register. If they had other arrangements in mind, they should have presented their contract up front. No license is necessary to use a piece of software once you own the physical medium it is contained on. If it were, then how could you legally run setup.exe (which is also copyrighted) and read the EULA in the first place? What about your motherboard's BIOS or the embedded software in your microwave or any number of other programs that you use without agreeing to anything special?

Re:Sounds legal....

[Random832]

They don't grant me anything that copyright law does not.

Yes, they do. They grant you the right to use the software.

Last I checked, 17USC117(a)(1) was still in effect.

Re:Sounds legal....

[nagora]

As long as those terms are not considered unilateral (i.e. only in the favor of one party)

Putting aside any issues I might have with the rest of your post (and much of that is down to the variations in laws between countries), can you name an instance of an EULA which is not wholy in favour of one party? The Apple example you cite is a classic case of one-sided restrictions.

TWW

Re:Sounds legal....

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

One has a right to do something by default, a law needs to take that away (or allow a contract to take it away - if you AGREED to it).

You have the right to USE software by default. Copyright can take it away due to the RAM copy being made - but not only is thier fair use - there is an explicit provision in the law allowing copying which is an essential part of USING the software.

Copyright law contains an explicit exemption to prevent it from restricting USE or any steps necessary for such use, including copying.

Anything not prohibited is permitted is the way the US law is structured. I don't need a law saying I am allowed to do something for it to be legal.

There is no contract or law granting you the right to reply to my comment - but you what you did is legal - by default. I couldn't sue you and win even if I wanted to (let's say I had a no-reply license on my post). The First Amendment just affirms rights we already have - and (in theory) prevents any laws from being passed or enforced which would infringe that right.

Re:Sounds legal....

[AKAImBatman]

What are you people blathering on about? I really, really don't understand why you've jumped into the "make a copy in RAM" argument when it was never even once addressed in my post. All I addressed was that copyright law allows a copyright holder to control the distribution of his works. That means that he has the right to not give it to you if you do not wish to agree to his terms.

Re:Sounds legal....

[AKAImBatman]

Putting aside any issues I might have with the rest of your post (and much of that is down to the variations in laws between countries)

The subject is US Law, so that is the Law of which I speak.

can you name an instance of an EULA which is not wholy in favour of one party? The Apple example you cite is a classic case of one-sided restrictions.

You have a brain. Think about it. Is it a unilateral agreement if I sell a piece of woodwork I've done? Under your logic, I'm the only one who's benefitting from the arangement. Or how about a horse breeder? Is it a unilateral agreement if a stallion owner only agrees to breed with a champion filly?

Another question for you, if you consider the contract patently unfair (i.e. only to the benefit of Apple) why enter into the contract? Think about it.

Re:Sounds legal....

[wallykeyster]

This is not legal in the US, thanks to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Re:Sounds legal....

[stanmann]

Sure, he has that right, but when I drop $150US at the cash register, I've got Windows 2000/XP and whatever I want to do with it from there is MY business, EULA or NOT.

Re:Sounds legal....

[stanmann]

It is a Unilateral agreement if you sell me the chair, and then 1 hour later you follow me home and say I can only sit on it on mondays and thurdays, and I can't sit on it with my wife. I am free to ignore you, and if you continue harassing me I'm free to have you removed from my property.

Re:Sounds legal....

[nagora]

Think about it. Is it a unilateral agreement if I sell a piece of woodwork I've done?

I don't see what you're getting at. If you sell a piece of woodwork but stipulate that the buyer is never allowed to sell it or let it be seen in public, that would seem to only benefit you, and that seems much closer to the Apple example to me. I agree you'd have to be an idiot to accept Apple's terms but the reason there's laws about these things is to prevent people being caught out by obscurely worded small-print which takes away rights they think they have because the transfer is dressed as a sale when the "seller" knows it's anything but.

TWW

Re:Sounds legal....

[AKAImBatman]

If you sell a piece of woodwork but stipulate that the buyer is never allowed to sell it or let it be seen in public, that would seem to only benefit you, and that seems much closer to the Apple example to me.

That is also a perfectly legitimate example. If those terms are acceptable to you, then you both benefit. You are payed a sum, and the buyer has the piece of woodwork. Thus there is benefit on both sides. The terms that you are suggesting are actually quite similar to the terms that the movie industry claims over their works. e.g. The FBI warning at the beginning of a movie explains that you are not allowed to show your copy at a public event. It is for personal viewing only. And the inability to resell your license to someone else is core to many corporate software contracts.

In order for a contract to be unilateral, you must show that only one side unfairly benefits from the arrangement. For example, if you are stuck in the desert without food or water and I give you a contract for food and water that states that you will become my slave, that contract is unenforcable. (It also falls afoul of various duress laws, but I digress.)

Contract theory basically states that a contract must be designed as an equitable trade between two parties. Either side can add terms (which are sometimes added back and forth as a tit-for-tat method of negotiation) as long as the terms do not make the contract overtly unfair to one party over the other.

References:
Unconscionability
Consideration

Re:Sounds legal....

[eaolson]

Copyright law allows me to install and run the program, so I can fail to agree to the EULA and still have that right

AFAIK, no, it doesn't. Since to do both of those things (i.e. copy from CD to hard drive, then from HD to RAM) you need to copy the software, which requires permission from the author. Usually in the form of a EULA. I don't believe the fair use exemption of copyright law has a "usability" clause.

Just because it's insane and stupid doesn't mean it's not the law.

Re:Sounds legal....

[Anonymous Coward]

The RAM copy does not matter, it's as permanent as the copy of the bok in your retina. You can backup your music, so why wouldn't you be allowed to copy the program to the HD? Anyway if there are no special laws forbiding to copy to the HD you can.

Re:Sounds legal....

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI warning at the beginning of a movie explains that you are not allowed to show your copy at a public event.

But it's not a contract and does not take away any rights you already had.

Re:Sounds legal....

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

I get my permission in the form of .

Fair use is 17 USC 107. It might also apply, but section 117 make it a moot point when it comes to running software - section 117 says it is not infringement to make those copies.

Re:Sounds legal....

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Somebody or something censored me:

I said 17 USC 117(a)(1)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

Re:Sounds legal....

[Pofy]

>All I addressed was that copyright law allows a
>copyright holder to control the distribution of
>his works. That means that he has the right to
>not give it to you if you do not wish to agree
>to his terms.

No, this does not follow. You are confusing use with distribution, two completely different things. Use has nothing to do with copyright since it does not regulate use. Nor does it regulate HOW you distribute. It only gives distribution as a right to the copyright holder. Typically this right is consumed though, so that it only applies for the first case of distribution of individual copies, after that, there is typically no control of the (re)distribution. Some exceptions exists, like rental still not being allowed even after first distribution. The above is the reason why you usually see for examample used book stores. The copyright holder has no control over that.

As for adding extra conditions to a sale, sure, that is fine. It has absolutely nothing to do with copyright though. That can be done when you sell a chair as well. You may as well argue that someone selling a chair can control the use of it and forbid certain ways and persons to sit in it. Still, that does not affect for example anyone else since no one else had agreed to it. In addition, such extra contratcs in relation to a sale is usually goverened by (consumer) sales laws, which in many countries severly restricts what is allowed and not allowed to add as such contracts.

An interesting note is also that such ectra contratcs regulating the sale (not use!!) of course must be done at the time of the sale. As far as I know, this is typically not done.

So no, just because you can control distribution, you can't control use. And copyright laws has really nothing to do about it, it just sale that the act of initial distribution is a right for the copyright holder. Anything in regard to HOW the distribution is done, is controled by completely other laws.

Re:Sounds legal....

[Pofy]

>Software, OTOH, is never sold in its entirety.

What makes you think so?

>The law recognizes that it is not a physical
>thing that can be taken away,

What makes you think so? According to 101 in chapter one of US copyright law it says:

""Copies" are material objects,"

No idea what you mean with "that can be taken away"

> and that copies
>can be made with impunity.

Yes, that is the nature of all work that is covered by copyright (and most everything else as well). That has nothing to do with if copies can be sold or not, they most certianly can.

>As a result, all software is licensed.

Since the intial statements are false, the "as a result" is not nessecarilly true. In fact, enter a typical software shop and you will see they sell a lot of things, including software. Besdies, what would you need a license for? You mentioned copying. A typical software purchases is not interested in creating new copies of the software, for which you would need a license. Most will just need that very copy only for which there is no need for a liences. In case you want to read the citation above yourself, and perhaps other parts of the copyright law, here is a link:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco de17/usc_sup_01_17.html

Re:Sounds legal....

[Pofy]

>The terms that you are suggesting are actually
>quite similar to the terms that the movie
>industry claims over their works. e.g. The FBI
>warning at the beginning of a movie explains
>that you are not allowed to show your copy at a
>public event.

You do realise that this is simply a statement of what the copyright law says, right? No need for a contract or agreement of any sort. By default you are not allowed to make such public event of a work upnder copyright. It would apply even if there was no such warning shown.

>And the inability to resell your license to
>someone else is core to many corporate software
>contracts.

What license? What contract? When I buy a movie, I make no contract nor is there any need for a license (UNLESS I want to show it in public). If I do get a license for showing it in public, then yes, most likely I can't resell it. It is a matter of what contract I make with the copyright holder. For more information of such things, check chapter 2 of the copyright law.

Supreme Court rejects Lexmark petition?

[LegendOfLink]

Wow. Go Supreme Court!

Make a printer with a large cartidge

[dextroz]

It seems to me that everytime you buy 4 printer cartridges, you've already paid the price for a new printer (inkjets). So why not just build a printer with a really large cartridge size and then expect people to throw the entire printer away. Make the cartidge non-removable of course... but then again I am not in the printer business and last I heard HP is still chugging along...

Re:Make a printer with a large cartidge

[m85476585]

Then consumers would always have the latest model. No more 5 year old printers printing at 1 ppm.

Re:Make a printer with a large cartidge

[tlhIngan]

Because that would ruin the Gilette business model. Printer manufacturers are subsidizing the cost of the printer with the cost of the ink (more expensive than Dom). That's why they deliberately package half-tanks in with the printers.

Inkjet printing is a subscription business. You pay a small amount upfront ("printer cost", though if you get it on special, usually nil). Periodically, you "renew" your subscription by buying ink. Refilling used to be a problem, but with chips like these, well, it's not a simple 5-minute job anyone can do with a syringe anymore.

Same goes with most consoles and games. Razors and blades. Cable TV boxes. Cell phones. etc.

That doesn't mean there aren't options. Besides 3rd parties, there are companies that make modified ink tanks that draw their ink from external reservoirs (with half-liters of ink). Slightly big and unwieldy, but works for those poster-prints printer manufacturers always want you to do. (Do those ink cartridges contain enough ink to do a regular poster print without running out halfway through?).

Re:Make a printer with a large cartidge

[zakezuke]

It seems to me that everytime you buy 4 printer cartridges, you've already paid the price for a new printer (inkjets). So why not just build a printer with a really large cartridge size and then expect people to throw the entire printer away. Make the cartidge non-removable of course... but then again I am not in the printer business and last I heard HP is still chugging along...

I have thought from time to time about the idea of designing a printer that would take bulk ink. Make to either accept a new 30ml or 60ml bottle that can either be replaced as a whole or replenished. The problem is I couldn't do it for a reasonable price. What consumer would consider a $300 to $500 when you can presently buy one for $50 to $100.

The only people likely to consider such an option are those who want the print yield of a laser, yet the glossy quality of dye, and those lot for the most part are perfectly happy chucking out $100 to $500 for a new printer every 6 months or so.

And why mess with the current gravy train? If it costs $75 to refill your current printer, and a new model costs $100.00, in a years time the net cost to upgrade is only $25. Or wait till they are on sale when the net cost is 0. Plenty of Canon or Epson after market bulk ink kits while not pretty do the trick for either the frugal consumer that doesn't want to pay $3000/$5000/$10,000/gal or the control freak that has to use x ink on x paper.

Re:Make a printer with a large cartidge

[rfunches]

Basically what the parent and grandparent said.

Printer companies are not in the business of making printers. They are in the business of selling ink. While it may be cheaper to buy a new printer, most people will not because when it comes to computers they want something that will 1) last and 2) be familiar to them. A new printer every few months means cables, installing software, and moving things around on what's probably a very crowded desk.

There's a reason why inkjet printers can be had for usually less than $50 and a decent laser printer (where the toner isn't a half-cartridge) will run you a few hundred bucks: inkjet printers eat ink like the dickens, but my HP LaserJet's still kicking after eight months and three or four reams of printing.

SCOTUS Pulls Head Out of Ass to Make Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, so it wasn't actually a ruling. But still, they had to have their heads out of their asses for at least a few seconds to dismiss this claim. After how far up they were for yesterday's state's rights fiasco, that is an impressive feat!

Certiorari?

[leathered]

Surely there is a better time for them to be ordering Italian pasta dishes?

Seriously, IANAL and I have no idea what this means.

Re:Certiorari?

[Anonymous Coward]

Certiorari: A writ from a higher court to a lower one requesting a transcript of the proceedings of a case for review.

Re:Certiorari?

[Orgazmus]

Some things you know, for everything else there is google

Re:Certiorari?

[whimdot]

Well, I thought it was funny. Sorry no points today.

please understand SCOTUS better

[supernova87a]

The Supreme Court gets probably 100x more petitions per year than it could ever choose to hear. So being denied a hearing by the Supreme Court is not in itself particularly revealing about the merit of any one case.

However, you can be sure that when the court does take a case, that it involves all of the following: 1) a fundamental question of law, 2) that is being inconsistently decided by lower courts, and 3) that is ripe for adjudication by the Court (based on sufficient instances of the problem to guide them).

So, this particular case could have failed for any number of reasons. It probably does not involve any spectacular question of law -- the lower courts are well-equipped to decide the issue. So it is not so much a stinging defeat for this company, as it is a final forclosure of legal options in a matter that was already practically resolved.

Any lawyer who tells you that "we'll take this all the way to the Supreme Court" and expects to even get it heard, is full of it.

Re:please understand SCOTUS better

[tweek]

I would suggest that everyone pick up a copy of Sandra Day O'Connor's book "The Majesty of the Law" as well as William H. Rehnquist's "The Supreme Court". These are some really amazing insights into the opertation of SCOTUS.

The W.H.R. book especially covers the process and how cases actually get before the court. He also covers some of the background of the cases he was involved in. Amazingly enough both books are fairly non-partisan and Rehnquist makes the point that many a president has made the mistake of thinking an appointee would be a backdoor into the Supreme Court when it has rarely turned out that way. He discusses court packing attempts as well which seems pretty relevant.

Re:please understand SCOTUS better

[fishbowl]

"However, you can be sure that when the court does take a case, that it involves all of the following: 1) a fundamental question of law, 2) that is being inconsistently decided by lower courts, and 3) that is ripe for adjudication by the Court (based on sufficient instances of the problem to guide them)."

You left out (4) States are getting uppity and the Bush Administration wants to put them down.

Re:please understand SCOTUS better

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that this always works. The second time Bush tried to get the Supreme Court to tell Florida's Court they were "wrong, try again", they just ignored him.

Re:please understand SCOTUS better

[wallykeyster]

So, this particular case could have failed for any number of reasons. It probably does not involve any spectacular question of law -- the lower courts are well-equipped to decide the issue.

I don't disagree with the gist of your post, but the fact that this case was a test of the limits of the DMCA means that the SCOTUS likely would have gotten involved had they disagreed with the Appeals Court.

So it is not so much a stinging defeat for this company, as it is a final forclosure of legal options in a matter that was already practically resolved.

Which is how it was presented. The fact that the SCOTUS refused to accept the case means that the previous court ruling against Lexmark will stand as a rare victory for those who oppose the overreach of the DMCA.

It's my printer, isn't it?

[xiando]

It's my printer, I want to use what ever ink I want.. With a chip that prevents me from using the type of products I want together with their products they make me feel like I am renting their printers under some very rude terms, not buying them with the rights that normally follow a purchase. It is almost as bad as a DVD player not wanting to play any kind of DVD you put into it.. oh wait, that IS the case with zone-enabled DVD players..

Re:It's my printer, isn't it?

[greed]

But Fram oil filters work on your Ford and his Acura and my Honda. NGK spark plugs work on all of them. I'm able to hook up power to my Garmin GPSes and Cobra CB from the Honda 12V accessory circuit. I can use a ClearView, Rifle or Laminar windshield if I don't like the standard Honda one. I can put a Corbin or Russell seat on it, or a Givi top-box. I can put Mobil, Quaker State, Motul, or many other oils in the engine or final drive. I can put gasoline from any decent refinery into the fuel tank.

In fact, the only thing that is a bit odd is the headlamp bulbs are a little weird; but they are easily adaptable to standard H4 bulbs, so that's no big deal either--and Honda isn't trying to sue anyone for making H4 adapter rings or telling people how to modify the headlamp assembly or an H4 bulb to fit it.

And, finally, I do NOT expect all components from my older Honda (VF700C) to fit the new one (ST1100A); even wearables--I can't use the same brake pads, oil filter, fuel filter, water thermostat, fan thermostat, cylinder head gaskets, valve shims, and so on.

I also can't use ink tanks from my Epson Stylus Color 740 in my Stylus Photo R200.

But I can use the same paper....

Re:It's my printer, isn't it?

[Yavi]

I see a slight flaw in your analogy. If Ford required you to only use Ford branded gasoline, then we would be dealing with the same issue. Nobody is up in arms about buying an additional paper tray or automatic duplexer from Lexmark, as those are integral parts of the device. However, a consumable such as ink or gasoline has no bearing on the proper functioning of the device, assuming it is formulated properly.

Re:It's my printer, isn't it?

[Auntie Virus]

On the flip side, do you expect Ford parts to work in your Acura? No, because they won't. Using the same car analogy, it's not *parts*, it's gas. No I don't expect to put a Ford alternator in my acura, but I damn well expect to use Esso gas in either car.

Re:It's my printer, isn't it?

[utnow]

Laptops will frequently only support parts made only by the manufacturer (or only available through them)... same with cars... You make a product and you can make it however you like, even if that limits the consumer to a certain part-replacement route. If however, someone else comes along with a similarly shaped part...unless you have a patent on the part then you're up a creek ;)

Re:It's my printer, isn't it?

[Renraku]

Why do you think the DMCA exists?

Not to protect the government, but to protect companies in their artificial scarcity rules.

Cars, for example. Some engines can only be read/serviced by proprietary software. Software that is probably found at the dealer, which is known for being too expensive.

Before, someone would just crack their encryptation, and release a module to service machines to make them able to communicate.

Now they have to wonder if they're going to get sued to hell and back, and would just move on to doing something else thats as profittable, but less dangerous.

You could say..its your car..I want to use whatever parts I want. No, you'll use the parts specified by your supplier in the future, or you'll be sued into oblivion.

Re:It's my printer, isn't it?

[AutopsyReport]

How the hell was this a troll?

I didn't realize that playing the Devil's Advocate was renamed to playing the Slashdot Troll...

Re:It's my printer, isn't it?

[AutopsyReport]

Right, but Ford isn't in the business of gas, whereas Lexmark is in the business of ink. That's the difference.

Otherwise, I'd wholly agree with you.

Re:It's my printer, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

a consumable such as ink or gasoline has no bearing on the proper functioning of the device

But it DOES! Lexmark laser printers are engineered to produce the highest quality images possible given the toner that they manufacture. A third party toner may be of lower quality, and may not be able to reproduce the same fidelity. Also, the strength of the laser, the temperature of the fuser, the coating rollers, etc are all designed to work with Lexmark toner.

The other thing to note in all of this is that it's not consumer ink cartridges for inkjet printers that the Lexmark legal case was about, but the laser printer toner cartridges. Lexmark makes the majority of their profit on the sale of laser toner cartridges for use in Lexmark laser printers. The laser printers are not sold at a loss, and do generate a revenue stream on their own.

Re:It's my printer, isn't it?

[rhizome]

Because nobody is arguing that Epson parts should work in Canon printers. Or Lexmark.

Re:It's my printer, isn't it?

[Pastis]

It works like that for mobile phones and nobody complains. (or course mobile phones can easily prevent you from using a different network operator).

You can buy a mobile phone with a subscription. Your phone is stuck to a certain operator for a year or 2, and you get it cheaper than if you buy it on your own.

Similarly printer resellers could chose to sell 2 types of printers. The ones with the 'ink renting' for a limited time, and the full price one.

Not sure if would work though.

Ad vita eternam vendor locking is not a good option.

Re:It's my printer, isn't it?

[wronskyMan]

True, but while companies certainly can put whatever features they want in their products, the GP's point is that the company should not be able to sue those who help you get around the features of your product. Summary: restrictive features=bad but OK; being able to make the government enforce your restrictive features=very bad.

So, that's it, then

[RealProgrammer]

This will start us down a dangerous, slippery slope: first SSC will start making cartridges for all Lexmark and other printers. Then people will start using those $9 refill kits instead of buying new cartridges that cost O(new printer).

The next generation of our youth will think nothing of using free software instead of paying for the commercial kind. People may even start bicycling or - brace yourself - walking to work. Civilization will come to a halt.

</irony>

Every once in a while, my faith in The System gets a little boost.

Re:So, that's it, then

[xiando]

"instead of buying new cartridges that cost O(new printer)." You make a very interesting point. The last time I bought a printer I almost bought two because I noticed that the printer cost less than the color and black cartridges it came with when sold separately. I almost feel stupid I didn't buy two printers, but then again I know that printers will still be cheaper than two ink cartridges the next time I go empty anyway. Why? They are all doing it. Canon, HP, Lexmark and all other major brands for that matter are selling printers cheaper than the ink now and are defendant on revenue from their original ink to make an overall profit. The problem for them is that this model fails because of all the third party ink vendors who are also making a profit from them giving away printers, but printer vendors not liking competition does not make it fair to use "what ever dirty means they can" (like Lexmark did) to stop it. It is very good that the Supreme court for once put the foot down for the usual Big Corporations "if you can not beat them, sue and threaten them"-tactic.

Re:So, that's it, then

[s.d.]

i remember a few years ago seeing someone at best buy or circuit city (can't remember which offhand) buying 5 printers at the friday after thanksgiving sale. the printers, with black and color cartridges, were on sale for something like $20 or $30 each. i asked him why he wanted 5 printers, and he told me that it was just so much cheaper to pay $30 for a printer and 2 cartridges than $30 each for 1 cartridge. the printers were pretty much disposable/one-time-use.

whew

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god...though anyone who buys a Lexmark deserves what they get - a paper-eating pile of shit.

"Monpoly"

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing monopolistic about what Lexmark did. You people sure like to throw that term around though - it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Re:"Monpoly"

[Anonymous Coward]

The term "monopoly" wouldn't refer to the printer part of their business, but would refer to the ink part of their business. They were trying to monopolize the sale of ink for their printers. Granted... they weren't trying to monopolize the sale of all ink, but then they aren't in the position to do that.

Re:"Monpoly"

[Anonymous Coward]

They abused their big market share in order to lock consumers into their product. Large market share = monopoly...

Re:"Monpoly"

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing monopolistic about what Lexmark did. You people sure like to throw that term around though - it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Consumer lock-in can be a tool you use when trying to create a vertical monopoly.

Woo hoo. End the monopoly.

[JustNiz]

Lets just hope this signals the ultimate end of putting chips to artificially limit lifetime and comaptability in ink cartridges.

HP do the same thing just to enable ludicrous overpricing on their ink cartridges. I'd love to see HP get forced to charge fair prices because of now legalised fair competition.

look at me!! I know big words!!

[Anonymous Coward]

certiorari
certiorari
certiorari

that just made me triple cool!

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=certiorari

Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge cont

[eniac79]

What Lexmark is trying to do is protect their revenue stream. Replacement cartridges have always been the money-maker for printer manufacturers. IMO, Lexmark also makes inferior products, so their products themselves are unlikely to bite into HP's large marketshare.

Printer companies HATE aftermarket cartridges. Lexmark wants to kill that competition via lawsuits. HP does it a smarter (albeit similarly devious) way. Make your cartridges incompatible by constantly releasing new printer models with new cartridge interfaces. The latest HP inkjet models with the HP 94/95/96/97 cartriges are just the latest example of this tactic.

Nay!

[BlueUnderwear]

Well, that's another tooth pulled from the DMCA. Unfortunately the process of judicial review is slow...

But eventually it will reach its end. And then the DMCA is gone. That's because your (the US) constitution in on your side. Indeed, the US clearly states that authors and inventors should only be granted "exclusive rights" if that promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts. That's a good thing.

Now imagine you had a constitution which would grant intellectual property owners unconditional protection. Imagine, that instead of saying ... to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. it just said intellectual property shall be protected period!

In that case, you'd be up shit creek without a paddle fighting the DMCA.

Now imagine you had a choice. Imagine you were asked to either accept such a flawed constitution or to reject it. Would you accept it?

Now, imagine that Bush threatened to resign if the constitution containing such a paragraph was rejected, saying in no uncertain terms that it would be a matter of common political decency to resign rather than be president of a country where intellectual property would not be protected 100%. Would you still reject the constitution? Or would you be cowed into accepting such a flawed document, for fear of losing your beloved president? Or would you rather rejoice at the prospect of having an easy way to ditch that village idiot ;-)?

In the next couple of months millions of EU citizens will be offered this choice. Millions of others won't be asked. If you are among the lucky ones that have a referendum, chose wisely. The EU constitution does indeed say, in article II.77.2, that intellectual property shall be protected. Nothing else. No limits to institutional greed. Some still think that it is in their best interest to say yes. Don't be fooled, and read the treaty before you sign it. The French and Dutch already have made up their mind.

Europe yes, but not with this constitution!

Re:Nay!

[lucas_picador]

But eventually it will reach its end. And then the DMCA is gone. That's because your (the US) constitution in on your side. Indeed, the US clearly states that authors and inventors should only be granted "exclusive rights" if that promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts. That's a good thing.

I hate to burst your bubble, BlueUnderwear, but the Supreme Court said in Eldred that the "promote ..." clause in the Constitution is strictly for decorative purposes.

This isn't to say that a later court may reverse that holding, but for now, there's no Constitutional limit on what Congress can do with Copyright. A grim holding, Eldred, and amazingly short-sighted.

Re:Nay!

[Anonymous Coward]

The "free" in free speach must be the same then...

Re:Nay!

[misterpies]

Not the whole story. Unlike the US Constitution, the European Constitution also has consumer protection (II 98) and anti-trust clauses (III-161 to III-169) and the whole needs to be read together.

So if the EU constitution was passed it would be _unconstitutional_ for companies to engage in competition-distorting practices.

Remember that there's very little new in the Euro Constitution. Almost all of it - including IP protection and antitrust measures (see e.g. articles 81-86 of the EC treaty) - is lifted from earlier treaties. And there's plenty of caselaw to show that in most cases, the antitrust provisions win out over IP rights.

And yes, I am a lawyer currently working on European antitrust cases, so I know what I'm talking about.

Its really sad...

[MrLint]

I'm glad this is over. And I'm saddened and sickened by Lexmark trying to go to the SC to force user lock in.

There was not only no need for them to have implemented this in the first place, but there was no need to try and kick a dead horse as far as they did.

I expect in the long run this will benefit the consumer any, however its a step in the right direction. Hopefully a few more cases like this and we'll be able to reclaim our equipment from the robber barons that want to control our every action.

An organized boycott of Lexmark?

[CyricZ]

Has anybody organized a boycott of Lexmark due to their use of these anti-competitive and anti-consumer policies?

Re:An organized boycott of Lexmark?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anybody organized a boycott of Lexmark due to their use of these anti-competitive and anti-consumer policies?

No, but many of us have been boycotting Lexmark for years, due to their crap quality printers.

Re:An organized boycott of Lexmark?

[zakezuke]

Has anybody organized a boycott of Lexmark due to their use of these anti-competitive and anti-consumer policies?

It's hard to boycott Lexmark when their printers are sold under so many other names. And it's even harder to boycott something you didn't buy in the first place. Often times the Lexmark is the free printer you get with your PC. Other times, the computer would cost more without the printer.

It's harder for the consumer to know they are getting a bad deal with that free printer. After all the cost of the lexmark cartrige is about the same as HP, just a thimble full of ink.

Re:An organized boycott of Lexmark?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most everybody seems to forget that printer companies sell their products at a loss, or at most at break even prices. The money is in the refills.

Brother cartridges cant be refilled. If you try it youll have toner castles and a clogged drum. I personally have never seen 3rd party toner fabs for Brother printers.

HP comes out with an array of new cartridges for its printers. New HP inkjets have 4 20$ cartridges to purchase! And their low-end models break on the first paper jam.

Lexmark isn't special, they were just more obvious in their deeds.

Re:An organized boycott of Lexmark?

[zakezuke]

HP comes out with an array of new cartridges for its printers. New HP inkjets have 4 20$ cartridges to purchase! And their low-end models break on the first paper jam.

I'm not up on HPs, but I rather thought that the gray cart was optional. Besides, this is roughly equal to Epson with their 6 color printers.

To go with your theme. The Epsons are designed with a diaper and software that blinks "need service" at what I would estimate as one year, requiring a $60 service call. Above average users get a head clog get a free diaper change or free replacement with ink.

I am presently least offended by HP can Canon.

So what? You have always had a choice.

[pandrijeczko]

Yes, Lexmark are a bunch on scum-sucking bottom-feeders just like almost every other money-grabbing corporation out there.

But the fact is that any idiot that goes to his local PC store and buys a printer without doing some research first deserves all he/she gets, quite frankly.

In these days of the Internet, there is no excuse for getting ripped off as the number of sites out there reviewing hardware, software, movies, CDs, etc, etc, means that it's quite easy to get good information prior to making any purchase. So if you've bought a printer without researching the prices of cartridges and the quality/prices of third-party cartridges, that's your fault.

The fact is that photo-printing to any reasonable quality is *hugely expensive* on a home use printer & PC combination and it's still much cheaper to drop a CD into a shop or a memory card into a machine and get the photos printed that way. Even much cheaper third party cartridges suffer from quality issues - it really is a case of "you get what you pay for".

No, I'm not justifying Lexmark's price-rigging, I bought one of their printers once and never will again unless their prices for cartridges come down.

But ignorance is no excuse - if the majority of people are too stupid to see beyond the glossy adverts that they are constantly bombarded with, then more fool them.

Re:So what? You have always had a choice.

[Technician]

So if you've bought a printer without researching the prices of cartridges and the quality/prices of third-party cartridges, that's your fault.

Good point. It's not quite complete however. Quanity of ink and page yield are important in figuring the cost per page. There is some deception out there (not a lie, deception)

HP sells two versions of it's 78 cart. The $35 half full economy version and the high capacity $60 version. The website lists the estimated page yield.

Doing my homework I checked it out. I was using an older HP printer that used the 23D carts. They are cheaper. I found the page yield numbers. They were a little less then the High capacity 78 cart. Wow. Sounds good, except the 23 carts were listed as tested with 15% color page coverage and the 78 cart was listed with 5% color page coverage. Using less ink per page will certanly make the more expensive cartridge yield more pages. If you adjust the % coverage and adjust the yield to match, then the new cartridge doesn't look like a bargan at all.

The fact is that photo-printing to any reasonable quality is *hugely expensive* on a home use printer & PC combination and it's still much cheaper to drop a CD into a shop or a memory card into a machine and get the photos printed that way. Even much cheaper third party cartridges suffer from quality issues - it really is a case of "you get what you pay for".

You got that right. I use color for web pages and document highlights. I let the photofinisher deal with the photos. It is cheaper and the results are much better.

But ignorance is no excuse - if the majority of people are too stupid to see beyond the glossy adverts that they are constantly bombarded with, then more fool them.

I hear that. My new printer did a nice job on photos, and the estimated page yield looked good. When it ran out way too soon from printing photos, I did my homework on what page yield really meant. Then I stopped printing photos. Photos are not 5% page coverage printing.

Re:So what? You have always had a choice.

[almostmanda]

The problem comes when every printer manufacturer starts doing this. There are a limited number of big name printer companies. Xerox, HP, Epson, Canon, Lexmark. If the courts say it's ok, all of these manufacturers will decide this method is THE solution to making money. As it is now, most of them see that the protection will usually be defeated, and third party sellers will continue.

Another problem is that most people don't get to research their printer before they buy it. Often, you get them when you purchase new computers, particularly entry level models. Dell is always eager to throw in a new Dell-rebranded Lexmark if you try to customize a system; eMachines from Walmart rarely come without at least a coupon for 50% off a new printer, but more often an actual free printer. It's a brilliant move by Lexmark and HP.

You can't really blame consumers on this one. Especially when buying their first printer, most people don't realize what a racket it is and how many things you have to research. I finally got my hands on a cheap Canon with cheaper third party ink that is good for what I need, but that took three tries with various crappy, proprietary printers. I doubt everyone is so lucky.

Re:So what? You have always had a choice.

[KillShill]

deserve is a very hostile/ignorant word.

you obviously don't follow your own advice and use a word in which you do not understand the full ramifications.

so clearly, you deserve whatever you get as a result...

Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c

[compro01]

Printer companies HATE aftermarket cartridges.

it ain't just printer makers. car makers hate aftermarket parts makers too. hell, just about any manufacturer hates aftermarket parts makers. it cuts into their bussiness.

S.Ct.--Lexmark, Upgrade! Federalism, Downgrade!

[ysaric]

I'd be a lot happier with the S.Ct.'s refusal to hear the Lexmark case (for as meaningless a gesture as it is), if it hadn't just yesterday taken a crap all over the principles of federalism in their Gonzales vs. Raich decision.

I also believe that while they declined to hear Lexmark today, they will take a similar case sometime in the next decade, likely after multiple Appellate courts establish inconsistent positions on the subject.

No, the monopoly won't be ended.

[CyricZ]

Did you even bother to read the article? The Supreme Court has refused to hear the case. Therefore no action will be taken against Lexmark. Therefore their monopoly on the cartridges for their own printers will not be ended.

Re:No, the monopoly won't be ended.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you thinking? Lexmark brought the suit against the SSC for reverse engineering, SSC can now go ahead and sell the chip they made to enable other cartridge makers' cartridges to work in Lexmark printers.

Re:No, the monopoly won't be ended.

[Threni]

> Did you even bother to read the article?

Yes, Lexmark wants to change a ruling.

> The Supreme Court has refused to hear the case.

So the previous ruling, against Lexmark, stands.

> Therefore no action will be taken against Lexmark. Therefore their monopoly on
> the cartridges for their own printers will not be ended.

Non-sequitur - the monopoly remains ended.

Re:No, the monopoly won't be ended.

[Catiline]

Pardon, but it was Lexmark who was petitioning.

That means they already lost in the lower court, and were refused a rehearing. Hell, Lexmark lost at every step of the way! This means the monopoly has ended; action has been taken, or at least handed down pending the end of appeals (e.g. now).

How long have you been not reading the articles? (Hell, not reading the summary, either!)

Re:No, the monopoly won't be ended.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wooosh!!

I bet you're feeling pretty stupid now!

Re:Refuse to hear?

[SatanicPuppy]

Ahhh, you're thinking of it the wrong way.

When they refuse to hear it, what they're really doing is saying: "Biznotch you KNOW you ain't got no case, so don't be frontin here or we'll be throwing down a majority opinion that yo punk ass needs some compton air conditionin. Fo shizzle."

Could Apply to Mod Chips

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder if this could apply to mod chips that do not permit circumvention of the copy protection. That is, ones that allow you to boot linux or games from other regions on the console. But still don't allow you to play without the disk.

fly my pretty-printer...

[inmate]

i have just one thing to say,

NEVER BUY A LEXMARK!

in addition to being an inferior printer, they also don't fly very well. i threw mine out of our 3rd story window and was quite dissapointed by its aerodynamics.

It's Only Toner Folks.

[writerjosh]

Who cares about Lexmark. If you don't want to use their monopolistic machines, buy another brand. It's called free market, deal with it. Plus, Lexmark machines aren't that great to begin with. There are better brands on the market.

I say, have the courts leave Lexmark alone. After all, it's only toner, folks.

Re:It's Only Toner Folks.

[CynicalGuy]

"monopolistic"???

Does anyone out there really think Lexmark is anywhere close to having a monopoly on printer ink, or do people just not know what that word means?

Re:It's Only Toner Folks.

[AstroDrabb]

So companies should be allowed to get away with whatever they want? If other companies see Lexmark getting away with locking in their customers, other companies will do the same. Say goodbye to the "free" market once that starts to happen.

Re:It's Only Toner Folks.

[vertinox]

Does anyone out there really think Lexmark is anywhere close to having a monopoly on printer ink, or do people just not know what that word means?

From Dictionary.com "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service"

Lexmark isn't a monopoly, but this behavior in itself is trying to gain a monopoly on what kind of ink cartridges are used.

A monopoly doesn't just mean a business, but rather you control or only allow one type of something.

Say like... I was the only one in an office who knew how to code HTML then you could say I have a monopoly on creating company webpages. This doesn't mean I have a monopoly of creating all company webpages of other companies, but if someone wanted to make a change to our company webpage then they would have to go with me.

A anology for Lexmark and my poor web coding skills were that I went around the office and deleted notepad.exe on everyone's computer in hopes that I wouldn't loose my monopoly (and job) for coding webpages.

So obviously, I am not a monopoly when you are talking about web coders throughout the world, but for this particular company/niche I would be.

At least Lexmark's and my intentions are concerned we are hoping to maintin a minature monopoly in our realms.

Re:It's Only Toner Folks.

[AnusesCheeses]

I like how many in the 'free market' crowd thinks that the government granting special privileges to companies.. whether it be DMCA protection or laws against copying files to be an example of "the free market at work".

Here is a clue: when the government gets involved to enforce special protections in the marketplace, its not a free market.

Here is a collorary: If Lexmark doesn't like other companies making cartridges that work in their printers, they have the choice of producing more competitively priced cartridges or geting out of the market altogether. THAT is the free market solution.

Problem with that

[tacroy]

Many new printers come with half filled ink carts. "To stop possible ink spillage that could damage the printer." Granted its just another money grab. But wanted to let you know before you blew a bunch o cash on new printers.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Printer prices were marked up today 400%.

OT: Rehnquist and O'Connor

[sconeu]

The recent medical marijuana decision was interesting because of the dissenters.

O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented on the ground of States Rights.

The others, including Scalia(!) ruled that medical marijuana (grown for one's self, in one's home, not taken out of state) can be regulated under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Just thought it was an interesting side note, given the parent post.

Re:OT: Rehnquist and O'Connor

[tweek]

One of the interesting points that each book I mentioned makes is that appointees almost never tow the presidential party line.

They cite a few reasons:

1) Rule of Law and the Constitution defies party lines. Or at least it should. It's the difference between a democracy and a republic. In a democracy, majority rules but in a republic, the law rules. I'm sure there are plenty of judges out there who don't and won't ever get this difference and will use SCOTUS as an attempt to make laws but they soon learn that it won't fly with SCOTUS. I get worried when I hear the Supreme Court mentioning public opinion as a basis for a ruling because it means that we inch closer to a doomed democracy.

2) SCOTUS justices are beholden to no man and they will long outlive the president who appointed them. W.H.R. cites several examples of this in his book and makes a grand point about it. He himself was appointed by Nixon and has long outlived that man's career.

Re:OT: Rehnquist and O'Connor

[hawk]

I wasn't surprised to see Thomas and Scalia split on this one.

Scalia's knee tends to jerk right on anything involving "police safety." That's a bit of a stretch here, but not a huge one.

I am surprised to see O'Connor in the dissent, though. Rehnquist isn't surprising, and Scalia was expected.

hawk, esq.

Re:OT: Rehnquist and O'Connor

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I don't know much about American politics, but you seem to place a democracy and a republic as mutually exclusive ideas. What then of the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Australia was considering becoming a republic, and they are a democracy. It seems Americans like to extend the meanings of those words around their politics.

Re:OT: Rehnquist and O'Connor

[entrigant]

So what exactly can a state do about such a blatant disregard for the law by the highest court of the land? It is pretty obvious to anyone that if something is not moved accross state borders then it is not interstate commerce. In fact in your example it's not even commerce! Is there anything the state can do besides not comply? Personally I am amazed the states have put up w/ the federal government overstepping its bounds as much as it has. It's amazing how much power being able to tax gives the federal government.

Re:OT: Rehnquist and O'Connor

[DavidBrown]

I have to disagree with your comment regarding Scalia. There have been a number of Supreme Court opinions in which Scalia came down on the side of heightened fourth amendment protections against the interests of the police.

In Kyllo v. United States, (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001) 190 F.3d 1041, Scalia wrote the opinion of the court that held the use of thermal imaging equipment to scope out a home to look for marijuana "grow rooms" requires a search warrant, countering the Ninth Circuit's argument that a home owner has no reasonable expection of privacy regarding the heat being radiated from his or her home. Scalia was joined in this opinion by Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Re:OT: Rehnquist and O'Connor

[hawk]

It's not police interests, but police "safety" that is usually at issue when Scalia and Thomas split.

I broguth it up because I can't fathom any other reason for the split in this case, which seems an improbable way for Scalia to vote.

I still maintain that Scalia and Thomas are the only two on the court that I'm certain have read the constitution.

When you find them alone in dissent, look around: you've just lost a civil right. When you find Thomas alone in dissent, cry: Scalia just agreed with taking the right away in the name of police safety.

hawk

Re:OT: Rehnquist and O'Connor

[ArtStone]

Nothing would make many libertarians and "small government" Conservatives happier than the Supreme Court reversing WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111. - that was the core of this highly charged issue. If wasn't about just about pot smoking.

Had the liberals on the court joined with the most conservative (to allow states to overrule Federal laws where there is no interstate commerce), everything the government has done since the New Deal would be "in play" as having no Federal Jurisdiction... the 9th and 10th Amendments might even be looked at again as being relevant.

The background on WICKARD v. FILBURN was that in order to stabilize farm production, FDR set up agencies that can regulate food production, characteristics, assess 'fees' on people growing the product - with the force of law behind them. Many of these exist to this day - [blue diamond] almonds, [sunkist] fruits, [Ocean Spray] Cranberries, [Sun Maid] raisins. If you have land in California and plant almond trees, and then sell those almonds, you are breaking the law (unless you belong to the blue almond cooperative, agree to their rules and pay them a fee that is used to fund marketing of the product).

In the 1942 case[1], a farmer was growing wheat on his farm in excess of what the Federal marketing program permitted. He did not sell any of the excess wheat. He fed the wheat to his cattle, used it for "personal consumption" (important for the current case), and kept some as seed for the following year. The Court in 1942 decided they had to protect the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938[2], even though on an individual basis there was no actual interstate commerce... (the needs of the many...)

IANAL

[1]http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri al s/conlaw/wickard.html
[2]http://www.webref.org/agriculture/a/agricultu ra l_adjustment_act_of_2.htm

Re:OT: Rehnquist and O'Connor

[entrigant]

Thank you for the reply. That was quite informative. It makes me wonder, however, is our constitution really so weak? Sure it may be hard to change, but there doesn't seem to be anything stopping the government from just ignoring or purposefully misinterpeting it. This is mostly a rhetorical question. It just makes me sad because the rights granted to citizens by the constitution seem to be going the same way rights granted to states have.

Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c

[Rich0]

HP does it a smarter (albeit similarly devious) way. Make your cartridges incompatible by constantly releasing new printer models with new cartridge interfaces.

All that does is delays the onset of generic competition. Unless they put serious levels of obfuscation into the cartridges (smartcards with challenge/response designed to resist reverse-engineering, for instance) it won't take long to duplicate any design. Sure, the generic company now has to support 100 models of cartridges instead of 10, but that works against HP as well. If HP has to raise their prices to support all those cartridges, then the generic companies can raise their prices to recover their costs and not lose market share. The only result of HPs decision would be more people buying from Epson since the entire cartridge market is cheaper (unless Epson does the same thing).

Unless they want to spend $40 per cartridge on smartcard technology, there are only so many limits manfuacturers can put on reverse-engineering. It is always cheaper to copy something than it is to design in the first place. Even smartcards can be defeated - they're made of matter and so they can be taken apart by somebody with sufficient determination...

Why is this different?

[JoelMC]

Look at the posts yesterday about DVD Decrypter being shut-down...then compare that the supreme court not hearing this case on Lexmark's behalf. It seems that DVD Decrypter isn't even as bad as SSC, but they've been bullied literally to death. SSC found a way to "crack" Lexmark's trade secret, and then sold it off to Lexmark competitors. How can that not stand up, but "some company" can attack on the grounds of DRM violation?

Re:Why is this different?

[zakezuke]

How can that not stand up, but "some company" can attack on the grounds of DRM violation?

You can argue that to copy a disc that is protected always violates the copyright. I don't agree with personaly, but the arguement is stronger because we are talking about material that costs millions of dollars to produce. You don't need a Disney DVD player to buy DVDs.

Lexmark doesn't have a copyright on colored liquid, nor apparently do they have the right to force you to buy your colored liquid from them. And let's face it, DVDs are cheaper than cartridges.

Mixed Feelings On This

[PingXao]

The SCOTUS refusing to hear this appeal has good and bad aspects. On the one hand Lexmark's abuse of the DMCA is at an end. On the other hand, the SCOTUS did not undertake a full review of the case and rule on the constitutionality of the issues at hand with respect to that fundamentally deficient law.

So far so good, I guess. They could have reviewed the case and said, "Oh yeah, you can use the DMCA to do that!"

capacity

[hawk]

Last time I checked, however, the cartridges that came with my printer held half or less what the regular cartridges did, making it cheapere to buy cartridges.

hawk

Re:capacity

[zakezuke]

Last time I checked, however, the cartridges that came with my printer held half or less what the regular cartridges did, making it cheapere to buy cartridges.

My Epson r200 came with a full set of ink. It's cost was $25 more than a full set of ink not on sale. With rebates which I didn't bother to get in this case, the cost would be a little bit more than the ink.

My Canon ip3000 came with a full set. After the rebate the cost is a tiny bit more than the ink. But the Epson was kauput and it's cost was cheaper than OEM ink for the Epson.

Every once and a while there are coupons and sales that make the printer cost less than ink cost. Rebates are generally one only per household, making it harder for one to just buy lots of printers.

Guess they didn't write enough checks

[saleenS281]

So basically lexmark didn't buy off enough people to get their way is what this is saying? Because this lawsuit has just as much merit as every other one that "went down without a fight".

Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c

[Technician]

HP does it a smarter (albeit similarly devious) way. Make your cartridges incompatible by constantly releasing new printer models with new cartridge interfaces. The latest HP inkjet models with the HP 94/95/96/97 cartriges are just the latest example of this tactic.

The big thing I noticed is my HP 95 printer uses a $60 color cart ($35 for the half full economy version) where my HP722c uses a 2 pack color cart ($43) for the same size cart. Needless to say, their old printer is competiting with the new printer. For web pages, Yahoo maps and other color printing, I use the 722, not the 950. The newer 950 sits in a box on the shelf. It's just a spare in case the 722 dies.

HP tried a public relations campaign by touting how much further the 78 cartridge prints by advertising the page count. I did my homework. I found the 722c printer's cartridge was listed by page count at 15% color page coverage.

The 950's color cart would print many more pages.. but at 5% color page coverage. They did not do a page count for both cartridges using the same amount of color printing per page! Needless to say, if I did a simple assumption that if the 722's printer cart did 5% coverage instead of 15% coverage I would get 3X more pages printed for my estimate. Then the comparison fell apart. The 722 printer prints more color pages using less ink from a cartridge at less than half the price.

I'll not buy another color printer until I have the hard numbers on estimated cart yield, cost per cart, and ultimately the cost/page at X percent color coverage.

My wife bought a Dell computer. It came with a Dell all in one printer. The carts are about 1/4 the size of the HP carts. The volume and estimated page yield are not stated anywhere. Needless to say, when it ran out of ink, it became a Goodwill item. I did not let the wife order ink. My laser and inkjet printers are networked. The Hawking printservers I use are about the same price as a HP cart.

Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c

[OhPlz]

That is interesting. I wonder if somehow this ruling could help aftermarket companies sell scan tools that can speak the individual lingo of each car manufacturer. There are maintenance tasks which cannot be performed properly without that manufacturer's diagnostic computer which no individual car owner could ever hope to have.

Some companies sell tools that can read a trivial subset of the vehicle's sensors, but I'm not aware of any that actually instruct components of the vehicle to do things (such as control the throttle during diagnostics, instruct the transmission to cycle for changing the fluid, etc..).

Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c

[tmortn]

I hope the inventor of the loss leading business model is roasting simultaneously in all the circles of Dante's inferno. Espcially the guy who started the damn give away the razor and overcharge for the blades crap. He should be given the worlds worst case of acne, forced to shave and splace lemon juice on for aftershave.

Why in gods name can't the printer companies just make a freakin printer, charge a reasonable profit for their effort and do the same with replacement ink. If they would do that there wouldn't BE any aftermarket ink war. The barrier of entry to full printer hardware market is far steeper than that to making knockoff ink well cartridges. But no... they have to keep chasing the dream of controling their market and forcing people into the 1000% mark up replacement ink in return for being able to buy at cost or mildly discounted hardware. Hell, if they would simply reduce their attempted price jack back to just merely astromical they could tighten the belts of the aftermarket crowd to the point it might squeeze them out.

Do they not realize the more absurd their markup the more room and incentive to operate they give the aftermarket crowd ? The higher they charge over the intrinsic value of the constituent parts the more money the aftermarkets can charge to re-coup a reverse engineering investment. In the end it just becomes corporate market competition with a sweetspot that is NOT in the consumers best intrest which is what market competition is supposed to be for in the first damn place.

You're an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

When they refuse to hear it, what they're REALLY saying is "out of these 100 candidate cases, this one is NOT the most important one for us to resolve".

They get WAY, WAY more applications than they can possibly hear. They try to pick the really deserving ones--ones with a wide impact, where lower appeals courts have been ruling inconsistently with respect to some question of law. Those are the ones that the Supreme Court will step in to set to rights, and this case is not one of them.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think its been pointed out: Lexmark *did* copyright the "lockout" chip (as Nintendo did). SCC *did* reverse engineer it. According to strict interpretation of the DMCA, what they did was illegal. The fact that the courts are not upholding the DMCA is quite significant, and a good step in the right direction. IMHO, the DMCA was a draconian measure in the virtual world on the order of the Patriot Act in the "real" world. I'll be glad to see them both go away.

Very funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some company tried to lock customers in and lock the competition out and they got kick in the teeth.. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Perfect example of comeuppance.

Thanks, Slashdot, I enjoyed that.

Economics....

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the court just wanted a good price on printer supplies ;)

I am very disappointed

[Secrity]

I am disappointed that I will not be able to boycott Lexmark printers -- I already won't buy Lexmark because I think that they are pieces of shit.

Re:I am very disappointed

[zakezuke]

I am disappointed that I will not be able to boycott Lexmark printers -- I already won't buy Lexmark because I think that they are pieces of shit.

Wouldn't it be worse for Lexmark if you got or bought their printers without buying ink?

Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c

[jimicus]

Why in gods name can't the printer companies just make a freakin printer, charge a reasonable profit for their effort and do the same with replacement ink.

Because they don't make enough money that way. Yes, a company could come along and do that, and charge a fair price for ink cartridges. The aftermarket ones likely wouldn't exist for that printer. But at the consumer end, most people look at the price of the printer itself. Considering ongoing costs is very much a niche corner of the market. At the business end, many printers aren't sold at all, they're leased - the company gets the printer and all the toner they can eat "free" - but they pay a fixed rate per page.

The only way you'll ever get this done is to legislate it. Never gonna happen.

Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c

[zakezuke]

The latest HP inkjet models with the HP 94/95/96/97 cartriges are just the latest example of this tactic.

I'm not up on current HPs. I know that the HP 94 black has a yield of 450p and will fit into printers that also accept the HP 96 with an 800p yield. What I don't know is if the lower priced printers that say the replacement ink is HP 94 will accept the 96 black.

Does HPs lock the lower end printers to the cart that has a higher cost per page?

Slashdot editors don't read closely...again?

[jbn-o]

From the /. story: "The story is on the AP Newswire as well.".

The Associated Press may have a story along these lines, but the link currently pointed to by Slashdot will not take you to that story. That link, copied from /.'s front page, takes the reader to a Static Control Components press release which happens to be carried on Yahoo! (a site that also happens to carry copies of AP wire stories).

Don't blame me; I voted for Badnarik

[tepples]

Now, imagine that Bush threatened to resign if the constitution containing [a paragraph granting blanket authority to enforce monopolies on works of authorship and inventions] was rejected, saying in no uncertain terms that it would be a matter of common political decency to resign rather than be president of a country where intellectual property would not be protected 100%. [A.] Would you still reject the constitution? Or [B.] would you be cowed into accepting such a flawed document, for fear of losing your beloved president? Or [C.] would you rather rejoice at the prospect of having an easy way to ditch that village idiot ;-)?

Don't blame me; I voted for Badnarik and every other Libertarian on the ticket in Allen County, Indiana, in 2004. Therefore, I'd choose C, ousting President Bush and his administration.

Yes, but that's good here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Granted, without SCOTUS to hear it, it means that it won't set a precident in any other circuit than the original case, but it DOES let the lower court's ruling stand.

In other words, Lexmark is SOL in terms of their DMCA -> ink monopoly scheme. There's also that Skylink case which decided more or less the same thing and prevented this particular abuse of the DMCA.

Now, in theory, another court in another circuit could rule differently, but at that point SCOTUS might well have to step in (that's what they do--harmonize those rulings which make the law inconsistant across jurisdictions) and then we'd have a larger precident. But the fact that all the lower courts to hear this so far have been so skeptical of any means to turn the DMCA into a monopoly scheme should at least be encouraging.

It would, in fact, be quite worrying if they HAD heard this case. Most of the time the Supreme Court grants cert. and decides to hear a case, they intend to overturn or otherwise revise the lower court's ruling :( Now, that's certainly not *always* true--there are other reasons for them to hear a case--but the statistics play out that way. IANAL, but I did have a class on SCOTUS, and my professor wrote a book where he analyzed all sorts of statistics about how the justices voted, but this still should not be taken as any sort of legal advice.

Never owned a Lexmark

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never owned a Lexmark and now im sure I will never own one either.

It's a free printer

[zakezuke]

It's called free market, deal with it.

Many people don't choose to buy Lexmark, they get them for free. More don't know they have a Lexmark, they are branded Dell or whatever. They don't understand each time they spend $26.99 on black 10ml of black they are spending USD $1,0217.35 a gal on ink. Say what you want about HP, but the 21ml 800p #96 cart is $30 or there and abouts of $5400/gal. The Canon Bci3eBK at $13.99 is 25ml, but claims only a 500p count, and squeeks in at $2118.42/gal.

The problem is awareness.

THEY MISSED THE DEADLINE

[chiphart]

The Supreme court did not judge this case on its merits. Lexmark missed the filing deadline by one day. Whether you agree with the result or not, they never had a chance once the midnight bell struck. Someone, somewhere (or, more likely, someoneS) is not sleeping well tonight. Or even this month.

My Feelings.

[ShagratTheTitleless]

Fuck you Lexmark. Fuck you right in the neck.

manners on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

That'll be the day.

Apple will switch to Intel chips before you find people with "manners" on Slashdot.

No, wait...

Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c

[eniac79]

I looked at HP's website for their retail prices and some information.

Your DeskJet 722c printer uses the HP 23 color cartridge. It has 30 ml of ink and has a retail price of $34.99. This is about $1.17 per milliliter of ink. (Twinpack available for $53.99, $0.90 per ml.)

The DeskJet 950c printer uses the HP 78 cartridge. The large capacity version of this cartridge has 38 ml of ink at a price of $53.99, which is $1.42 per ml. (The low-capacity 78 cartridge is $34.99 for 19 ml, for an even worse $1.84 per ml.)

HP later came out with the HP 57 ink cartridge. It is $34.99 for 17 ml of ink, a cost of $2.06 per ml. (The 57 twinpack is $62.99, $1.85 per ml.)

HP's newest color cartridge is the HP 95/97 cartridge. The 95 cartridge is $24.99 for 7 ml of ink, which is an astounding $3.57 per ml!

You can also get the HP 97 "Large" cartridge, which is $34.99 for 14 ml of ink. This comes in at $2.50 per ml. (HP 97 twinpack is $62.99, $2.25 per ml.)

Funny that a TWINPACK of the largest volume cartridge gives you 28 ml of ink, which is just UNDER what one HP 23 color cartridge gave you!

Nice summary

[slapout]

For those out of the loop on this one, Lexmark tried to lock in consumers and lock out competition by adding code to their printers and toner cartridges so that only Lexmark toners would work.

Every slashdot article should have a nice sentence like this telling us what the story is about.

Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c

[Technician]

Funny that a TWINPACK of the largest volume cartridge gives you 28 ml of ink, which is just UNDER what one HP 23 color cartridge gave you!

That's exactly why I still use the 722c printer with the 23 cartridge twin pack and not a newer printer.

Re: the USSC...

[benjamindees]

Yay, the three least relevant justices on the USSC managed to be *in the minority* in making the most obviously correct determination, perhaps in the history of the US. Even the "strict constructionist" forgot what the words "among" and "commerce" meant.

Even better, the majority only managed to come up with *three pages* of dribble, containing trite, memorable fallacies like the one below, to justify their power-grab.

"If Congress decides that the 'total incidence' of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class."

"production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."

(emphasis mine)

Material for an ask-slashdot question: reuse?

[UnapprovedThought]

This idea of flying printers got me to thinking about the waste disposal issues of so many useless parts accumulating.

In general, what to do with a printer with cartridges that cost almost the same price as the printer, are shipped less than half full, that dry out if you let them sit for a few days (something the tech support doesn't give you any clue how to fix) leave streaks and never quite match the color tone of the image and which resist all attempts at using third party ink? Hmm.

Maybe with some mods it could be used:

• As a camera mount? Let the camera swing left and right to get a better view out the window?
• To iron clothes? Just feed the pants leg in and let the printer do the rest. Maybe in combination with a TCPA-encumbered processor to provide the heat?
• As a blinkenlights port? Use the LEDs on the printer to keep the beat of your fav3 tun3z.
• To make sound effects? Have it make shuffling and grating noises to ward off burglars thinking of entering your home.
• Put a knife on it and maybe it will peel potatoes? "It slices, it dices!"

Just a few to get you started.