Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Promising Ruling In Lexmark DMCA Case 12

Posted by michael from the morning-in-america dept.
EvanKai writes "Jason Schultz writes, "This just in --- Static Control Corp. has won its appeal against Lexmark over the right to produce after-market replacement cartridges for Lexmark printers." You can find a PDF of the ruling here and more about the case on EFF's site." It's important to note that the case is not even close to finished; this was just a ruling on whether Static Control would be enjoined (prevented) from selling their replacement cartridges while the suit proceeded. The original court issued an injunction, and the Appellate Court felt that Static Control had a good chance of success in court and overturned the injunction. The case will proceed and in the end, either side may win.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Promising Ruling In Lexmark DMCA Case More

Promising Ruling In Lexmark DMCA Case

Comments Filter:

  • Yay (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LiENUS ( 207736 ) <slashdot@vetman[ ].com ['age' in gap]> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:48PM (#10634968) Homepage
    So if i understand this right, this means they may continue selling their cartridges during the court case, which means it wont be so easy for lexmark to just keep them in court untill they run out of money.
  • It's basically a choice between expensive ink and expensive printers. The question whether one should consider it a good news or bad news depends only on the individual printing patterns, i.e. how much ink does one use on average in a printer lifetime. This is certainly a hard question to answer.
    • Oh...and the minor issue of your freedom.
    • it's good news for the consumer.

      with cheap printers and expensive ink it's hard for a regular joe to make information based decisions on what he would like to buy(what will using some printer cost for him and will it be just cheaper to buy another piece of plastic and electronics than the refill..).

      it's always easier if manufacturer doesn't try to make you a subscriber instead of a one time purchase...
    • Well, nonwithstanding impact on other cases where DMCA is waived and the consequences over innovations in/with the USA, this question may also have an impact on the environment.

      At a time here, it was cheaper to buy a new printer box to get a new (then full) ink cartbridge ... Thus a lot of brand new printer trashing.

    • Have you guys seen a Lexmark cartridge? I don't know how people put up with that shit! Fleecing the public is what Lexmark. Print cartridges should have been "commoditized" long ago.
  • Good to know that SCC is getting a fair and speedy trial.
  • Sounds like Lexmark can't handle the competition and is using the law in a perverse way to uphold a monopoly by seeking to prevent SCC from manufacturing cheaper cartridges.

    The DMCA was designed to protect copyrights and prevent IP theft, not protect monopolies and prevent competition.

    • Lexmark is hardly a monopoly in the area of inkjet printers. However, I fully agree that they are intentionally abusing the DMCA in order to prevent competition from manufacturers of low cost ink cartridges.
    • Understand that protecting copyrights and preventing IP theft is exactly the same as protecting monopolies and preventing competiton. (Not that that's a bad thing - a copyright is a limited monopoly granted to promote the science and the useful arts. Which would be good, were there any balance currently.)

      What you mean is, the DMCA is meant to protect copyright monopolies, not ink cartridge monopolies - let Lexmark buy it's own laws.

      • Understand that protecting copyrights and preventing IP theft is exactly the same as protecting monopolies and preventing competiton.

        A bit of yes and no here. Both copyright and Patent are supposed to let you prevent me from sponging off of your intelectual exercise -- but they are both designed to allow me to compete with a similar but improved/cheaper product that does not infringe on your own inventions.

        What lexmark tried to do here was game the system and essentially make it impossible to compete in

  • Regardless of the outcome, it's too late for Lexmark.

    Abuse of the DCMA and copyright by a company is not easily forgotten. I will never again purchase any Lexmark product, nor will I encourage or support their use by others.

    For those who would consider buying any hardware from Lexmark and their ilk, consider this: you are only helping to pay the lawyers and others who promote abuse of the legal system.

Slashdot Top Deals

Dennis Ritchie is twice as bright as Steve Jobs, and only half wrong. -- Jim Gettys

Close