Slashdot Mirror
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.
The specific clause from the DMCA is thus:
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 While I doubt that we'll see the DMCA repealed, I seriously doubt we'll be seeing any new restrictions any time soon.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
More trash, that's just what we need!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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).
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..
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
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?).
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.
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.
"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.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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".