Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lexmark Case

Posted by Zonk on Tue Jun 07, 2005 09:55 AM
from the tough-break dept.
Government The Courts Printers News Technology Hardware
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.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Hardware: How Aftermarket Inkjet Ink Holds Up After a Year 152 comments
An anonymous reader writes "About a year ago I found a link on here for a test of inkjet printer inks. The article compared original manufacturer inks against much cheaper third party stuff and the results were surprisingly in favour of third party products. They've now published the final part of this study, examining the prints produced a year ago. This time the printer manufacturers have come out far better, with some third party prints having disappeared completely! Cartridge World ink still seems worth a try though, if you don't want to pay manufacturers' inflated prices."
This discussion has been archived.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.

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lexmark Case 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • It sounds like Lexmark thought they could pull a Nintendo [answers.com] 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. [harvard.edu] 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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 07 2005, @10:09AM (#12746932)
      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 [findlaw.com]

      Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. at findlaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/0354 00p.pdf [findlaw.com]
    • 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.
      • 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.
    • 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
      • 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.
  • Well, that's another tooth pulled from the DMCA. Unfortunately the process of judicial review is slow...
    • 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 populat
      • 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.
        • 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).

        • 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.

    • Nay! (Score:4, Informative)

      by BlueUnderwear (73957) on Tuesday June 07 2005, @10:25AM (#12747099)
      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! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by misterpies (632880)
        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

  • Disposable printers - the solution? (Score:5, Funny)

    by guyfromindia (812078) on Tuesday June 07 2005, @09:59AM (#12746819) Homepage
    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...
  • 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...
    • 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?).

  • please understand SCOTUS better (Score:5, Informative)

    by supernova87a (532540) <kepler1@hotma i l .com> on Tuesday June 07 2005, @10:10AM (#12746941)
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by tweek (18111) on Tuesday June 07 2005, @10:20AM (#12747037) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • OT: Rehnquist and O'Connor (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sconeu (64226) on Tuesday June 07 2005, @11:19AM (#12747873) Homepage Journal
        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 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by tweek (18111) on Tuesday June 07 2005, @11:30AM (#12748024) Homepage Journal
          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.
        • 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.

  • It's my printer, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xiando (770382) on Tuesday June 07 2005, @10:14AM (#12746988) Homepage Journal
    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..
      • 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

  • So, that's it, then (Score:3, Funny)

    by RealProgrammer (723725) on Tuesday June 07 2005, @10:15AM (#12746992) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • "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 m
      • 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.

  • "Monpoly" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 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.

  • Woo hoo. End the monopoly. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JustNiz (692889) on Tuesday June 07 2005, @10:22AM (#12747065)
    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.

  • Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge cont (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eniac79 (767137) on Tuesday June 07 2005, @10:24AM (#12747091)
    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.

  • 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

  • fly my pretty-printer... (Score:3, Funny)

    by inmate (804874) on Tuesday June 07 2005, @10:55AM (#12747546) Homepage
    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.

    • 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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dreamchaser (49529) on Tuesday June 07 2005, @10:10AM (#12746946) Homepage Journal
        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).
      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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 la
      • "lot, stock, and barrel"

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

        Now you know.
      • 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 yo
        • 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 y
          • 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 c
    • 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."

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.