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.
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:Yay! (Score:0, Informative)
SG8DTD9297GSBISIDFIDSGFUDGFD
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:Certiorari? (Score:3, Informative)
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: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.
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:Sounds legal.... (Score:2, Informative)
LOCK, stock and barrel. Used to refer to guns, as they were often sold piecemeal.
Now you know.
No, the monopoly won't be ended. (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Sounds legal.... (Score:1, Informative)
They already granted you that right at the cash register. If they had other arrangements in mind, they should have presented their contract up front. No license is necessary to use a piece of software once you own the physical medium it is contained on. If it were, then how could you legally run setup.exe (which is also copyrighted) and read the EULA in the first place? What about your motherboard's BIOS or the embedded software in your microwave or any number of other programs that you use without agreeing to anything special?
Re:"Monpoly" (Score:2, Informative)