Slashdot Mirror
Lexmark Sues 24 Companies Over Toner-Cartridge Patents
eldavojohn writes "Remember back in 2003, when Lexmark tried to use the DMCA to stop aftermarket toner cartridges from being produced? Well, they're now suing 24 companies for infringing on 15 patents they have on toner cartridges. The article also notes that Lexmark has been filing lawsuits over patent infringement on formulas for their inks."
How can a formula be patented when you can't even copyright a recipe (and that's all ink is, a recipe of dyes)?
As for patents on toner cartridges, I imagine if they were specific enough to get a patent for it (I know, I know, I'm not new around here, I know stupid patents get granted all the time), chances are they wouldn't need to worry about after-market producers.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Their patents are probably nothing more than 'we patented the specifications of cartridges that work with our printers so other companies can't sell cheap 3rd party cartridges' patents.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
I called their tech support after trying to get one of their printers to work on Linux. This was before I found out that they use a non-standard and proprietary way to communicate between computer and printer.
The tech asks me if I'm using Windows XP or Vista. I say I'm using Linux. He's says "Windows Linux?" "No, just Linux." "Oh, okay, Windows 98." From there he proceeded to give me help based off the idea that I was running Microsoft Windows 98 Linux Edition.
Yes, Lexmark still sells printers and yes, their printers still cost less than their ink cartridges. And yes, their drivers are as crappy as ever.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I usually ignore stories about hardware patents, but this one highlights a problem that exists in software patents: interoperability is essential.
Microsoft can develop a wonky filesystem (FAT), and use their market power to force it on everyone. When they finally realise that 8-letter filenames is a broken idea, they add a fix, patent the fix, and sue people who use the fix.
That fix isn't patentable because it's valuable, it's simply valuable because it's patented. It's an arbitrary idea, not necessarily better than any other solution (of avoiding the problem in the first place!), but it becomes a must-have because it's the idea Microsoft chose to implement.
Same with Word. Microsoft patents a few features in their file format and they're essential. You develop your own file format and patent some features, and they just get avoided by Micrsoft and nobody cares about your patents. How good your patents are, or how they compare to Microsoft's patents, is of no consequence.
And so it is with Lexmark. They make cartridges in a certain way. Might be good, might be wonky. You can patent a better idea, but it's useless because you're not looking for "best", you're looking for "compatible".
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help with developing these arguments is very welcome.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
I really hate this mindset... do you really think that people are powerless? I mean, the only reason that unionization wasn't more effective earlier on is because the corp's used the government to bully strikers. If more consumers were well informed they'd buy smarter... If a telecom pisses you off, you switch, no gov't subsidies, companies die... No bailouts? Car companies compete or die.
I'm a bit more pragmatic than most libertarian minded people, but feel that citizen activism, and civics are part og what a free market is... I do think government has its place though. I do think process and design patents (including all software) should be limited to 5 years, as a special class of patent, that copyright law should return to sanity, 20 years, and renewable once if owned solely by the original owner(s) and all original owners are living persons (not companies) and that trademarks should be used for thier original purpose, not bullying or fair use in comparisons.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
There once was a seller of toner
Who said to a purchasing moaner
"If you like it or not
This lock-in we've got
Will give all the lawyers a boner."
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
After all, that's what it boils down to.
Can't beat the competition - sue them. What this tells me is that Lexmark doesn't have a good enough value proposition on their replacement toners. If they offered even close to equal value to the knockoffs, or the knockoffs had a bad rep for damaging people's printers, there wouldn't be a problem.
it's certainly not for lack of trying! take the RIAA for instance: they've been on a "education" campaign in schools for years now, trying to convince kids that copyright law essentially means the RIAA wins, no ifs, ands, or buts.
or like in health insurance and big pharma, where the average citizen simply lacks the needed specialized education to understand complex medical terminology.
and history has borne out that when a corporation or similar entity has unbridled freedom, they WILL do whatever they want to establish their own economic and political dominance. let's look at Microsoft: they essentially HAD an unregulated monopoly, up until the Fed (and the EU) came and put a stop to it. the government solutions were STILL ineffectual; Microsoft simply adapted (and i'm treading dangerously close to Gates of Borg here), and there's really still no viable OS alternative save Mac OS. it took Apple and Google to knock Microsoft down a peg. and both of those companies have really problematic practices, too.
government regulation is NECESSARY. there's a fine balance, but leave corporations alone and they WILL abuse the people. stockholders don't care so long as they make profit. with government, at least we can vote abusive politicians out, no capital required.