U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lexmark Case 220
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.
Lexmark is no Nintendo (Score:5, Insightful)
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 While I doubt that we'll see the DMCA repealed, I seriously doubt we'll be seeing any new restrictions any time soon.
Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. at findlaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/035
Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo (Score:2)
Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Lexmark is no Nintendo (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Yay! (Score:2)
Re:Yay! (Score:2)
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! (Score:2)
Re:Yay! (Score:2)
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! (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Don't blame me; I voted for Badnarik (Score:2)
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.
Disposable printers - the solution? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Disposable printers - the solution? (Score:2, Informative)
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? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=M
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? (Score:2)
But enough about HP. How do you replace the printhead on the Canon?
Re:Disposable printers - the solution? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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 $30 Lexmark...
I tried telling her to go to Canon for inkjets, or get a laser, but that didn't work...
Myself, I've got a Minolta-QMS PagePro 1250W (B&W laser) and a Konica Minolta (build quality is better than the Minolta-QMS unit (same model) that it replaced after two days, but firmware quality is a LOT worse) magicolor 2300DL (color laser).
Re:Disposable printers - the solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disposable printers - the solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disposable printers - the solution? (Score:2)
If you only need occasional black and white then laser is indeed the best way to go. For moderate to high volume black and white laser is also the way to go. For economy laser is the way to go. Using some examples from work, the cost per page for bubblejet printers was ~$.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? (Score:2)
Re:Disposable printers - the solution? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
- 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.
Make a printer with a large cartidge (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Make a printer with a large cartidge (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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.
please understand SCOTUS better (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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:please understand SCOTUS better (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's my printer, isn't it? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
Re:It's my printer, isn't it? (Score:2, Interesting)
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? (Score:2)
So, that's it, then (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So, that's it, then (Score:2)
capacity (Score:2)
hawk
Re:capacity (Score:2)
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.
"Monpoly" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Monpoly" (Score:2, Informative)
Woo hoo. End the monopoly. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:No, the monopoly won't be ended. (Score:2)
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!)Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge cont (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c (Score:2)
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...
Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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.
Re:Lexmark, the Printer Industry & cartridge c (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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?
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:So what? You have always had a choice. (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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.
fly my pretty-printer... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Why is this different? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why is this different? (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
So far so good, I guess. They could have reviewed the case and said, "Oh yeah, you can use the DMCA to do that!"
Guess they didn't write enough checks (Score:2, Insightful)
I am very disappointed (Score:2)
Slashdot editors don't read closely...again? (Score:2)
From the /. story: "The story is on the AP Newswire [yahoo.com] 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).
Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes (Score:2)
Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Lets hear it for the Supremes (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
A lot of stuff isn't terribly complicated - mostly practice, practice, practice.
Re:Sounds legal.... (Score:2)
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.... (Score:2, Informative)
LOCK, stock and barrel. Used to refer to guns, as they were often sold piecemeal.
Now you know.
Re:Sounds legal.... (Score:2)
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.... (Score:2)
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.... (Score:2)
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.... (Score:2)
Re:Sounds legal.... (Score:2)
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.... (Score:2)
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.... (Score:2)
I said 17 USC 117(a)(1)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html [cornell.edu]
Re:Sounds legal.... (Score:2)
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.... (Score:2)
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.... (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Consideration [wikipedia.org]
Re:Sounds legal.... (Score:2)
Re:Certiorari? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Certiorari? (Score:2)
Re:Refuse to hear? (Score:2)
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."
Re:It's Only Toner Folks. (Score:2)
Re:An organized boycott of Lexmark? (Score:2)
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.