Slashdot Log In
Copyright Office Rules Against Lexmark
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:39 PM
from the bout-time dept.
from the bout-time dept.
SparkyTWP writes "'The United States Copyright Office has ruled in favour of Static Control Components, of Sanford, N.C., saying that its microchips do not contravene the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.' This was in regard to SCC making microchips that imitated Lexmark's in remanufactured printer cartridges. It appears Lexmark won't be able to do anything about third-party cartridges."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Doh! (Score:5, Redundant)
Re:Doh! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doh! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Doh! (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL but isn't that illegal?
Doing a quick search: Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act - United States Code Annotated - Title 15 Commerce And Trade - Chapter 50 - 2302
Re:Doh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Doh! (Score:3, Informative)
Refilling is not a panacea for the high cost of cartridges. True competition for cartridges, thus lower prices for consumers, is a much better solution. The ruling for SCC is very good news.
Re:Doh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doh! (Score:3, Interesting)
They're rated for approximately 500,000 sheets, and most that you buy used have about 100,000.
Cartridges are about $80, and are rated to print about 35,000 sheets each. That comes out to about $.03 per sheet, compared to about $.20 a sheet for normal inkjets.
Obviously, you don't have to change such printers as often. I print about 20 pages per week. By my estimate, I'll have to change the cartridge in a decade or so.
Re:Doh! (Score:2)
Re:Doh! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that copyright -- which is what Lexmark was trying to use, and is a monopoly -- is not intended to protect them from this sort of competition.
It is after all entirely possible that the razor/razor blade approach is not feasible with regards to printers. Lexmark should not be protected from fucking up; if they made a mistake with their pricing, it's their own damn problem.
Parent
Re:Doh! (Score:3, Insightful)
What? So if you go to someone selling "autos" and they say "I'll give you this 10k auto for 300/month over 5 years with the 5 year extended warranty" you can't say "hell no, I'll give you the 10k cash thank you" and go on down your bank and get a 10k loan for 300/month over 3 years instead and hence stop them getting the extra 4.5k?
Now if you really want to look at "autos" you can say that Ford have no right to produce a vehic
Re:Doh! but wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Dealers make very little profit (though they do make profit) on the vehicles they sell. The money is made on the extras, on the service departments, that kind of thing. A dealership generally cannot survive on vehicle sales. It is not true that most cars are sold at a loss for the dealership: that's an exaggeration. (I would quote figures but unfortunately they're confidential: however, I will say that my job entails managing financial data for around ten thousand US, Canadian, and Me
Re:Doh! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doh! (Score:2, Insightful)
No they can't - Magnuson-Moss act (Score:4, Informative)
No they can't. With the DMCA out of the way for now, and disregarding patents, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act [1st-in-synthetics.com] prohibits a manufacturer from conditioning a product's warranty on use of other products identified by trademark unless the manufacturer can prove that the off-brand product damaged the product under warranty.
Parent
Re:No they can't - Magnuson-Moss act (Score:4, Informative)
Now, that being said, there's nothing to keep the companies from trying to tie warranty to their own supplies. Most consumers are sheep and will believe the "customer service" droid at the end of the 1-800 line when the droid says "your warranty is void because you didn't buy Barfco toner carts."
So the tie-in might work by default. The company will just get its pee-pee slapped by the FTC or a state attorney general if they get called out. But that may take years, and we all know that business milestones are measured in weeks. That's plenty of time for the marketing VP to gather his bonus and promotion and leave the aftermath of anti-competitive and illegal warranty policies to the customer-service VP that he personally doesn't like, anyways.
(It's not everyday that a bright executive gets to garner laurels and financial rewards for a bright idea that simultaneously torpedoes a competing executive in a different department of the same company. Gotta push down to rise up, right?)
Parent
"Consumer products" not "motor vehicles" (Score:4, Informative)
Relevant text of the statute [padiscountink.com] from an off-brand inkjet ink manufacturer, quoting 15 USC 2302 [cornell.edu]:
Where again is it limited to motor vehicles?
Parent
Re:No they can't - Magnuson-Moss act (Score:4, Informative)
From FTC.gov ; Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [ftc.gov]
Nothing about cars as far as I can see..However as a IANAL, I can see that there is a lot of leagal speak about "limited warranty" and "requirements" for the law to apply so comments from law gurus are appreciated.
Parent
Not likely, look at cars (Score:3, Insightful)
They can try that scheme. However automobile manufactures tried that stunt years ago, and it has been countered. When denying warentee covereage because of something the customer did they need to prove the modification caused the problem. Thus a non-OEM radio is not reason to refuse coverage for a blown engine, but would be reason to refuse coverage on a blown speaker.
Wouldn't surprize me to see them try to pull that stunt, and it would cause problems for a few years. Expect that it will eventially be
No more expensive cartridges (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is that a bad thing? (Score:2)
Re:HP's business model will suffer BIG TIME (Score:3, Informative)
> cartridges versus printers?
I'd have to say the order from most to least profitable is as such:
1) laser printers
2) ink jet ink
3) toner ink
4) ink jet printers
Oh yea, the gap between #1 and all the others is about tripple as well.
I'm sure they will feel it, but it wont be the worst thing to happen to HP.
When you need a color laser that can photocopy and print from the network, a $10k HP wont compare to the inkjet market/problems
Telling quote (Score:5, Interesting)
Could there be a more appropriate quote that shows how the DMCA is ultimately an anti-competition and anti-capitalist tool?
Re:Telling quote (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Telling quote (Score:3, Insightful)
The intent of copyright is to grant a monopoly to encourage people to create and innovate. Whether that's a good idea, and whether the implementation of that idea in US law is effective, I'll leave to the many other discussions already on slashdot.
Anti-capitalist I'd disagree with. Copyright favors those with capital. Again, that may be self-defeating, but the inte
Re:Telling quote (Score:3, Insightful)
It is an anti-competition tool, but is not an anti-capitalist tool. Stop confusing capitalism with the free market. Capitalism is system where capital is used to create more capital. The DMCA defends the capital of the megacorporations...so it is pro capitalism. Owning a political organization or a set of laws is like owning any other capital asset. You invest x amount in elected of
Thank goodness... (Score:3)
Small victiories...make everything work.
Re:Thank goodness... (Score:2)
even if I can't spell.
Re:Thank goodness... (Score:2)
No no no - Small victories make everyone work. Big victories make everything work better...
Who owns Static Control Components? (Score:2, Funny)
I have a Lexmark printer ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I have a Lexmark printer ... (Score:2, Informative)
You would think... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Oh, we can't sell third party ink for your printers? Well then I guess we'll have to remove all your products and tell customers they should return the ones they bought recently which we'll ship back to you at your expense, as per our contract..."
But even though it seems like that's how things should be, I have to agree with your view being how things really are. I just can't understand where the leverage is coming from.
Re:I have a Lexmark printer ... (Score:5, Interesting)
A while ago (when USB printers first became the dominant style), I had some real fun. I loaded up a cart with thousands of dollars worth of computer stuff (that I was legitimately going to purchase) and a printer was part of it. When I found out that the *cheapest* USB cable in the store would cost me $20, I just left the salesmen standing there with their thumbs in their asses.
I ordered a *hundred* USB cables for a dollar and I keep them in my trunk. Now, Best Buy is a necessity for me at times because it is convenient. Whenever I go, I stop by the printer aisle and give a cable or two away to anyone who mich need one. It saves them $20 and makes me feel a little better about actually spending my money at such a crooked store.
The interesting thing is that Lexmarks are sold *with* a USB cable at places like RiteAid and other convenience stores.
Parent
woohoo laissez faire (Score:3, Interesting)
YAAAY! (Score:4, Informative)
Does anyone know if Lexmark has any legal recourse beyond this ruling? Can they appeal somewhere? Or is this the done deal?
I say good! (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the Playstation 2. It's locked-in (you must have Sony approve of and produce your game in _most_ instances), yet they make their profits on the game system whether or not you buy any games.
Let's see how long before other companies discover ways to break the models of these lock-ins and force the main company to rethink their strategy of selling short and hoping for bigger profits as time goes on because no one else can sell the accessories at reasonable prices.
Yeah!! and Hooray! (Score:2)
Justice... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice. It's been said before here - the courts usually do the right thing, you just need the staying power (read: money) to get there.
I liked the quote at the end:
I read that as "My turn now..."
I
not just lawyer bills (Score:5, Insightful)
What kills me is that, in granting the preliminary injunction the judge had to consider the potential for damages (page 48)... he found that Lexmark would suffer "irreparable harm" in terms of lost sales and money. Excuse me, but I think those can be repaired with money. On the other hand, if SCC had been put out of business under a load of bogus legal bills it couldn't survive, I think it would have suffered irreparable harm.
Parent
Nelson (Score:2, Funny)
Which printer to buy? (Score:5, Informative)
Their recommendation (and HP's work writing opensource drivers [sourceforge.net] that support all the features of their printers) was the reason that I purchased a PhotoSmart 7260 from HP and I haven't regretted it - even the integrated card reader works [sourceforge.net].
Not surprisingly they rate Lexmark inkjet printers as useless.
Re:Which printer to buy? (Score:3, Informative)
Lexmark seems to take good care of its corporate customers while pounding Joe User up the ass.
Not that I consider that any sort of inducment to buy any of their products, mind you.
KFG
A major hit for "Intellectual Property" (Score:5, Insightful)
No serious effect on the market (Score:3, Informative)
What the inclusion of third party cartridge resellers into the market place does is cause competition in the sale of a specific consumable (toner), and nothing more. Sure, it is going to cut into profits, but printer manufacturers have a very easy way of fighting back: if you use third party consumables, you void your warranty. And this is a perfectly reasonable tactic, because you can't expect a printer manufacturer to insure a product that is using components who's quality they have no way of controlling. And trust me, when it costs $450 dollars just to have a printer tech take a look at your machine, no one is going to willingly void their warranty.
more info @ scc's website (Score:5, Informative)
I've been watching this case closely, and I'm glad it's been thrown out like the Garage door opener case! [eff.org]
Great! (Score:5, Informative)
There was a similar case where the Chamberlain Group, a garage door opener manufacturer, sued Skylink Technologies over a universal garage door opener using the DMCA by saying that the program that interpreted the signals from the garage door remote was being exploited by Skylink, and thus fell under the circumvention article in the DMCA. Skylink has won this case. The judgement is here. [eff.org]
Buy Canon (for windows users) (Score:3, Interesting)
The i960 prints photos very fast, as well, and the 4x6 drop-down tray is very cool if you're using the printer to print photos and regular stuff every day. The photo quality is excellent.
They do charge $200 for the printer; if it was from Lexmark I think it would be $100, but they'd be selling you locked-in ink carts for $30 each.
I had an Epson before, and between bottom fill refilling leaking ink onto my hands, sponges that got air-saturated so you couldn't get them full anymore after a few fills, chips that you had to buy reprogrammers for to reset them, etc, etc, I was fed up.
Similar case (Score:5, Interesting)
The facts sound roughly similar to Sega v. Accolade [harvard.edu], a 1992 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case in which Sega (whom you all know) sued Accolade, who made Sega Genesis-compatible games without obtaining a license to do from from Sega.
Sega sued the crap out of them, alleging among other things trademark infringement. Basically, the Genesis console has a bit of code in the bootloader that checks that the game cartridge has the word "SEGA" in a particular location. That triggers a display that says "PRODUCED BY OR UNDER LICENSE FROM SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD" for a few seconds on the screen.
Sega was trying to be clever. If you manufactured a game cartridge without the "SEGA" code, it wouldn't run. And if you manufactured one with it, then you caused the display to appear. And if that statement was false (because you hadn't actually obtained a license), Sega could sue you for trademark infringement! Hehehehe.
The court told Sega to get a life. Trademarks are a limited monopoly allowing the holder exclusive use of certain aspects of words, pictures, or phrases. They certainly can't be used to tie monopoly purchases to nonprotected things, thereby extending the limited monopoly to them. If you could, then every manufacturer would have monopolies on everything they manufactured, as well as every replacement part, or compatible product, etc. etc. etc. They'd simply manufacture a patented, copyrighted, or trademarked doodad and then make sure that their entire product depended on that item to operate.
This sounds like what Lexmark was trying to do -- they had some sort of computer chip that verified that things were legit, and then they sued anyone who needed to copy that chip in order to make replacement parts. The lesson from Sega v. Accolade is: don't do this.
do people think this will make a difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
preventing 3rd party cartridge competition? The lexmark case -- isn't it less than a year old? Refill gouging has been going on alot longer than that.
Printer companies can still use technological means to ensure cartridge loyalty, and only for the oldest printers are you likely to reap the benefit of reliable reverse engineering. Suppose your printer company has rotating encryption keys for the protocol that rotate twice a year for 10 years but only after 365 days of being 'on' with '5' days assumed usage out of '7'. Now you use your printer 3 days a week -- That would mean you rotate in
HP places expiration dates in each printer cartridge -- which means if you buy a 3rd party cartdridge and if such encryption were employed, users could find their 3rd party cartridges quickly "expired".
This legal decision does nothing more than release low-quality cartridge verification algorithms -- the easy one's to reverse engineer; it does nothing to prevent printer manufacturers from using ever more complex methods to protect their lucrative cartridge income.
Only if state laws (some state out east was doing this?) pass "open replacement" requirements on printer manufacturers will this situation seriously change.
There is also nothing to prevent printer manufacturers from secretly detecting foreign cartridges and setting a flag in the printer NVRAM to mark it as "tainted" and no longer available for support/warrantee. Makes perfect sense -- "we" (a printer manufacturer) "won't warantee our printers when used with 3rd party cartridges due to the lack of quality assurance in such cartridges. We can't be held responsible if a 3rd party cartridge damages or otherwise causes problems in your printer and won't be held responsible if 3rd party cartridges are used."....etc.etc.etc...blah blah blah. The DMCA is a tool of companies to protect against easily circumventable access controls.
-lpq