Refilling Ink Cartridges Now a Crime? 769
Eric Smith writes "The Ninth Circuit has created box-wrap patent licenses. Now the label on the box that says "single use only" is given force of law, and if you refill the cartridge you are liable for patent infringement."
using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, but don't you dare try to put a quart in there!
Re:using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Slashdot, the Fox News of Patents, has vaguely summarized a short article and omitted details that would significantly diminish the outlandish headline.
You can infinge every patent in the world so long as you do it for your own purposes. However, you cannot do it for business. There's nothing in the article OR the licensing agreement that describes what you can or cannot do with the printer cartridge for personal use. Be creative.
This judgement says that you cannot engage in the business of refilling "one use only" cartridges, which apparently includes selling your used cartridges back to a refilling company. I personally find that bizarre, because you could easily "sell your junk" to a third party, who "sells his filtered junk" to a cartridge refilling company, and enforcing this judgement would be nigh impossible. Regardless, this has nothing to do with how you use or refill your printer cartridges - for personal use.
Re:using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is unlikely that Lexmark will bring a patent infringement suit against an individual end user for refilling his or her printer cartridge, but that does not mean that they are unable to do so.
In Brasil, (Score:5, Informative)
(*) == trademarks + patents
Re:using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:3, Interesting)
Lexmark can sue me for killing the CEO's dog, regardless of whether the CEO has a dog or whether I've ever been in the same time zone as the dog. But they aren't going to, because it's absurd, frivilous, and there's no chance of success.
You're perfectly free to infringe a patent for personal use. The instant you
Contract law... (Score:5, Interesting)
2/I Biff the "1 use only" mention
3/I put my initials on the correction
4/I open the package
Voila !
I didn't accept this part of the contract, I dutifuly notified the other party the same way they notified me, put in the correction I wanted and authenticated it...
Now, when I open this pack, Lexmark is legaly bound to the notification I made
(Yeah, I know, this is stupid, but if it works in one direction, it should work in the other...that's the beauty on the juridic system : you can be two playing at being idiots...)
Also, if they just put a patent on the "one use only" system, I'm sure the Condoms industry can come up with some prior art...
Re:Contract law... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Contract law... (Score:5, Informative)
I posted a little more info about this here, [slashdot.org] or you can google for more info.
Re:Contract law... (Score:4, Insightful)
A mouse click EULA or any other agreement is only enforceable if it can be proved WHO the parties thereto are. Nobody can ever prove in court WHO clicks a mouse or opened a package. Also the person cannot be a minor who is not allowed to enter into any kind of legally binding contract. All those "agreements" are not worth the paper they are printed on when push comes to shove in a court case. Just because a package was opened or a mouse was clicked does NOT establish the identity of BOTH parties. There cannot be an agreement unless it can be proved WHO is agreeing to what and that has to be at least TWO parties. I'd like to see anyone prove the identity of a mouse clicker or package ripper unambiguously. That is why in important agreements we have things notarized or at the very least affirmed with a written signature.
Re:using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:3, Interesting)
Punitive damages? Idiot.
Re:using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:4, Interesting)
The score is
Gigantic Corporations: 1
Everyone Else: 0
Re:using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:3, Funny)
Well I'm in trouble then... I sometimes peel the labels off of my bottled water, surely they'll come after me citing the DMCA now!!
Re:using other containers have same 'crime'? (Score:3, Funny)
[Beavis-and-Butthead]Whoa! That was cool! Huh-huhuhuhuh...[/Beavis-and-Butthead]
Meh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Meh... (Score:5, Funny)
Inflate.. fly, condom, fly!.. inflate.. fly, condom, fly!.. inflate..
Re:Meh... (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, who ever listens to those "one use only" instructions?
Yeah, when zero use takes away far less time from
ok, it is late.
Re:Meh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Meh... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Meh... (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory Monty Python quote: (Score:3, Funny)
How exactly is this patent infringment? (Score:4, Interesting)
How is that patent infringement? Does that cover if I, personally, refill my cartridge at home rather than buying one someone else refilled?
Re:How exactly is this patent infringment? (Score:3, Interesting)
I decided I would not support a company which has so blatantly abused both the law and their customers.
Did you hear that, Lexmark? You lost a sale because of your lawsuits. Fuck you, I'll buy HP instead.
Re:How exactly is this patent infringment? (Score:3)
You can also get duplex printing for cheap (for those docs that just have to be printed...)
Re:How exactly is this patent infringment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How exactly is this patent infringment? (Score:3, Informative)
On Slashdot, the Fox News of Patents, that is the $64,000 question. To anybody who works in the patent system, the answer is clearly not patent infringement.
Patents are published to provide disclosure to the public. You are perfectly free to perform any patented method or build any patented machine. You are not free, however, to use them to engage in business. You're even free to improve them and patent those improvements.
Re:How exactly is this patent infringment? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, patents do prohibit merely making or using the patented item/process regardless of whether it's for profit or not.
From 35 USC 271(a): "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent." (emphasis mine)
Re:How exactly is this patent infringment? (Score:3, Informative)
I would have been more accurate in saying, "You can infringe any patent you like for personal use." I'm well aware of the statute, and "personal use" is indeed infringing.
However, if it's not profitable, then there are no damages to be won in a courtroom. If I make it for my personal use, all you can argue is that I saved money, but you can't prove that I would have otherwise spen
Re:How exactly is this patent infringment? (Score:3, Interesting)
Great! So the whole peer-to-peer thing is solved that easy, according to you?
After all, if I download a (song/movie/game) for my ppersonal use, all you can argue is that I saved money, but you can't prove that I would've otherwise spent it on the copyrighted product or service.
That's how it SHOULD be interpreted-but it's not how it IS interpreted. That's the whole problem here.
DMCA Doesn't Apply (Score:3, Informative)
Lexmark already lost their DMCA case... that's why they moved on to patents, where they apparently won. (that parts in TFA)
Gotta Love The 9th Court Circuit of Hell... (Score:3, Insightful)
You lose. (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting down to ownership; if I buy something, I guess it's not really mine, eh? Stop me.
Re:You lose. (Score:4, Insightful)
only if you let them get away with this criminal behavior.
we need to stop baa-baaing and get some tar and feathers and run these bitches out of town. or at the least, revoke their business licenses.
Re:You lose. (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for the "doctrine of first sale" (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently the Ninth Circuit thinks that the labelling "single use only" on the box is a legally binding contract, and thus the sale of the product to a consumer is not an "unrestricted sale".
If this is upheld, we can expect that soon all patent holders will be asserting all sorts of control over consumer products that they currently cannot. For instance, when you buy a new cell phone, it might have a label on the box stating that it is only for use with headsets from the same manufacturer. Up until now they've only been able to try to lock you in by putting a proprietary connector on the phone, and that only works until other manufacturers start producing headsets or adapters with that connector, but under the box-wrap precedent they may be able to use force of law to keep you from using an Ericsson headset with a Nokia phone.
Please lord let this stand (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way deep change will come about is when people are told that they can't modify their cars with non-GM parts, when people are told that they can only wear nike shoes with nike pants, when people are prohibited from buying an oral B tooth brush with some Crest toothpaste unless they sign a contract where they promises not to use the 2 products together.
Let the crazy come cause the crazy can't stay, they can just hassle us for a while.
Re:9th Circuit on Reversal (Score:3, Interesting)
If you really want to badmouth the 9th Circuit, can you at least complain about something real, instead of your latest delusion?
Here we go again... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll never buy their products anyway, and I'll make sure that everyone I know is well-informed about their business practises...
N.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of-course i can get the third party cartridges for 5 euros
Not that i would actually want a lexmark printer , but its something to mull over
Yeah yeah yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that one of their decisions will effect soccer moms and art students, maybe something will be done about it.
LK
Read the opinion please. (Score:5, Informative)
Lexmark discounts certain cartridges with the understanding that the user will return the spent cartridges to Lexmark. Lexmark recycles the cartridges and sells them again. Lexmark got their panties in a bunch because another company was taking their prebated cartridges and recycling them, causing Lexmark to lose money. Lexmark isn't being quite as evil as they are made out to be, in this case.
That being said, Lexmark makes my pants sad.
Re:Read the opinion please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they should stop doing that.
If the business model isn't working, Lexmark doesn't necessarily have a legal recourse.
Re:Read the opinion please. (Score:5, Informative)
That does not make everything good, but at least it's not the same thing as the inflamatory
Re:Read the opinion please. (Score:4, Insightful)
pretense (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems pretty unfair to hold the 3rd party to the terms of a rebate contract they never saw, didn't agree to, and are not a part of does it?
Re:Read the opinion please. (Score:5, Informative)
Myabe you should actually read the ruling. The business model is working, and Lexmark doesn't need nor did they seek legal recourse.
It was Lexmark that was sued, because the people that want to sell third-party remanufacturered cartridges are having their business hurt by Lexmark's success with this program.
Re:I signed up for this deal with Dell (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_sale [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract [wikipedia.org]
some quotes of interest:
Contract formation: Generally, formation of a contract requires a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange and a consideration
Contrary to common wisdom, an informal exchange of promises can still be binding and legally as valid as a written contract. A spoken contract is often called an "oral contract", not a "verbal contract." A verbal contract is simply a contract that uses words. All oral contracts and written contracts are verbal contracts. Contracts that are created without the use of words are called "non-verbal, non-oral contracts" or "a contract implied by the acts of the parties."
If a contract is in a written form, then generally, you are bound by its terms regardless of whether you have read it or not (L'Estrange v. F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394). However, this is tempered by the exception that if the terms of the contract are misrepresented, then the plaintiff is unable to rely on the terms of the contract; in addition, the document must be contractual in nature (Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805).
An implied contract can either be implied in fact or implied in law. A contract which is implied in fact is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. For example, by going to a doctor for a physical, a patient agrees that he will pay a fair price for the service. If he refuses to pay after being examined, he has breached a contract implied in fact.
A contract which is implied in law is also called a quasi-contract, because it is not in fact a contract; rather, it is a means for the courts to remedy situations in which one party would be unjustly enriched were he or she not required to compensate the other. For example, an unconscious patient treated by a doctor at the scene of an accident has not agreed (either expressly or by implication) to pay the doctor for emergency services, but the patient would be unjustly enriched by the doctor's services were the patient not required to compensate the doctor.
And if that isn't enough, consider the situation when lexmark gives you a prebate. They are paying you (via a discount) for a service (the return of the empty cartridge) by taking the discount and failing to do so, you are doing the same thing as if a vendor took your money and didn't give you the product.
Re:Read the opinion please. (Score:3, Insightful)
And why can't they achieve this by posting you a discount coupon (off the cost of a new cartridge) for every re
Re:Read the opinion please. (Score:3, Informative)
Lexmark discounts certain cartridges with the understanding that the user will return the spent cartridges to Lexmark. Lexmark recycles the cartridges and sells them again. Lexmark got their panties in a bunch because another company was taking their prebated cartridges and recycling them, causing Lexmark to lose money. Lexmark isn't being quite as evil as they are made out to be, in this case.
Lexmark should take a lesson from the auto parts industry. If I have the water pump on my car die and want to r
CVS 'disposable' digital cameras and camcorders (Score:3, Interesting)
I OWN the cartridge, not RENT / LEASE it (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't this a monopolistic or ogopolistic practice which is suppose to be illegal? Isn't this ruining competition by putting up artificial barriers-of-entry for the printing cartridge market? If some smart company decides to make ink refills, that increases competition which provides us end-user consumers more choices, better quality, and lower prices.
Bah, I've already lost all hope for the U.S. from top to bottom. Watch the re-release of THX-1138. That's what we've become. "Buy, consume, buy more, consume more, take your drugs, beware of an interval-overdose."
Re:I OWN the cartridge, not RENT / LEASE it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's your lump of plastic and assorted trace metals. However, it's their patented technology which you need a licence to use legally.
You know, there was once a time when most people owned very little. The average European owned no land; instead he rented patches of land from the local lord, and paid most of his produce to that lord in rent.
We're heading back that way now. It's not land any more, no, it's intellectual property. The way things are going we geeks won't be free to invent as we always have done any more; we'll have to pay massive dues to our feudal overlords who own patents on everything.
The best thing is, the libertarians won't care. It's not the government that's pissing all over us, it's private enterprise. And that makes all the difference, doesn't it?
Re:I OWN the cartridge, not RENT / LEASE it (Score:3, Informative)
You could probably also understand the ruling if you read it, which is something the story submitter obviously did not do.
Here is what the Court actually said:
I'm curious... (Score:4, Insightful)
The 9th Circuit could have just been honest and said that "refilling ink cartridges infringes on Lexmark's right to make money off you and we clearly can't have that now, can we".
Informed Citizens (Score:5, Funny)
Any of you who behave in opposition to this way of thinking are terrorists and clearly hate America. You are either with us (corporate America) or you're against us. You evil doers will not do us.. uh.. out. There's a saying back where I come from. Take a man's fish and give him... er... uh.. . Give a man your banana and reap his fis... er..
Good night and God bless.
They'll get my catridge refiller when... (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously not a crime (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read the court opinion, you'll see that the cartridges won't work unless Lexmark refills them because there's a lockout chip. So breeching this particular contract is going to be difficult anyway.
Lexmark is guilty of no more than offering their customers a bad deal.
Buy a laser printer instead.
Remove Lexmark from CUPS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Remove Lexmark from CUPS (Score:3, Insightful)
Cut off my other leg already.
Re:Remove Lexmark from CUPS (Score:3, Insightful)
A better course of action would be to just get people you know to never, ever buy a Lexmark printer.
Whatever happened to the basic theory of purchase? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever happened to the sensible days? How is this supposed to be enforced anyway? Does this give the ink cartridge company the right to spy on me in my own home so as to make sure I'm not *gasp* refilling their cartridges?!
Madness (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the insanity of capitalism: we are running out of oil; we are filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses as the result of our energy use; we are clear-cutting; we are running out of easily habitable (without extra energy consumption for climate management, water movement, etc.) space; and yet the only measure with which we as a society are concerned is the measure of capital and the individual "freedom" to acquire it (by and large a lie propagated by those who hold it-- how many billionaries are in your family?), even as we consume ourselves into a planetary grave.
It's not just conceptually consumable items like ink cartridges that could easily be re-used; it's even big-ticket items like cell phones and automobiles--millions of them end up in landfills each year while they're still perfectly good, either because they're artificially locked/behavior-controlled or because manufacturers refuse to continue to support them so that they can sell new models to individuals who demand them in part after succumbing to the forces of marketplace psychology in advertising and in part because of the real social (and thus capital) benefits that such appearances (i.e. a new auto; a new cell phone) provide as a result of the marketplace.
The "marketplace" is merely the aggregate of individual greed and it mechanistically ignores problems that any single individual feels to be "bigger than themself" and their own desires. If you let the "marketplace" dictate environmental and social policy, you are asking for a system that (like its component individuals) completely ignores the realities of the very survival of our species in favor of giving everyone a better-tasting cola in the run-up to the planetary apocalypse.
It is time to stop capitalism and corporatism now.
Nothing to see here (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure there's anything to see here folks. TFA doesn't mention what seems to be a crucial fact: Lexmark offers consumers a choice. They can buy the cartridge at the regular price without any restrictions on what they do with it or they can buy it at a discounted price, in return for which they agree to return the cartridge to Lexmark. The boxes are marked differently. There are "prebate" boxes, which carry a notice explaining that these cartridges are to be returned to Lexmark, and there are "regular" boxes.
It seems to me that this is perfectly fair, so long as the purchaser knows what the deal is up front. Its clear that he or she has a choice as to whether or not to accept the deal since Lexmark is offering both arrangments. You can't say that Lexmark is using monopoly power to force people to buy its products whether they like the contract or not if it explictly offers two different deals. It's possible, of course, that Lexmark or the dealers that sell its products are not up front about the two deals, but the Ninth Circuit, which is known, generally, for its "left-wing" slant and is hardly anti-consumer, didn't find evidence of that. Here's the decision [eff.org] Am I missing something?
Re:Nothing to see here (Score:3, Interesting)
this is criminal and unethical business is what it is.
people MAY choose to return them to lexmark but they are under no obligation. putting up more reasonably priced ink on store shelves and then trying to deceive people with a pseudo-legal notice that reminds them they are under a contract... what utter bullshit.
and as we can clearly see, the ninth-circuit is obviously not competent enough to realize you don't enter into contracts sim
Misleading and misunderstood, as usual (Score:5, Informative)
The case is not about not being able to refill your ink cartridge, but about the fact that customers were given an option of a cheaper cartridge, with the contractual agreement that, in compensation for the lower price, they would return the cartridge to Lexmark after a single use. Customers had a choice to agree to the contract or not. They could have bought the same exact ink cartridge for a higher price, and not been under any obligation to return it or not refill it.
Me, personally, I'll never own a Lexmark product, ever, and neither will the company I work for as long as I can help it, thanks to the crap they've pulled in the past. Having said that, in this particular case, I am on their side. Why should a consumer get a benefit, and then complain that they have to actually uphold their end of the deal that gave them the benefit?
Anyway, the article linked, and the initial post, really have absolutely no bearing on the actual facts. Typical slashdot.
Re:Misleading and misunderstood, as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
Now if they sold the catridges with a deal whereby if you return them to Lexmark you get a rebate, then that's fine, but this so-called "prebate" has (had) no basis in law and was just Lexmark relying on people being well behaved and returning the cartridges.
Re:Misleading and misunderstood, as usual (Score:3, Insightful)
If I buy it with cash and then toss it how will I get caught?
This is just a tricky way to shut down companies that re manufacture ink cartridges.
As you said the cartridges are identical. The companies can now be sued if someone sends in one those one use cartridges and they do not catch it.
It is very sneaky to say the least.
Re:Misleading and misunderstood, as usual (Score:4, Interesting)
opening up a package does not constitute a binding contract no matter how much the briber^H^H lobbyists moan and bitch.
they're just words on a package unless you specifically signed the agreement with an employee of lexmark.
business models are of no concern to customers, legally or morally.
Re:Misleading and misunderstood, as usual (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet Another Misleading Slashdot Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
To answer the question in the headline: No, it's not illegal to refill your Lexmark ink cartridges. What's illegal is for a company to buy up empty "one-use" cartridges, fill them back up, and resell them.
Whether it was warranted for the court to uphold this or not, the decision does not mean what the Slashdot editors would like you to believe.
Slashdot: News for the Gullible. Stuff that insults your intelligence.
Another Stupid Slashot 'Story' (Score:3, Insightful)
It has to be the worst form of intellectual dishonesty to post a story that is as misleading and erroneous as this. If makes Fox news look 'Fair and Balanced' by comparison.
America (Score:3, Insightful)
Please read the decision before freaking out (Score:4, Informative)
Shrinkwrap "Licenses" are Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
What have I been telling you people for at least the last ten years? [vwh.net] Why haven't you been paying attention?
To the apologists who claim that a contract is created between Lexmark and the purchaser, I ask: Where is the informed disclosure? Where is the manifestation of informed assent? Where are the signed copies of the "contract"?
The reason retail markets are so valuable is because a regular set of rules that is common to all states governs how transactions in the market take place. This regularity is what enables an accelerated transfer of goods and services, which lets money flow around the economy that much faster, benefiting everyone. If you want special terms or conditions you, by definition, are not trading in a retail market. For you to sell your goods in a retail venue is therefore, at best, misleading ("bait-and-switch," anyone?).
If you want special terms and conditions, get a signed contract. Oh, that's too much trouble? Well, tough shit. And if you try sneaking a contract in under the radar, well, that doesn't prove you have any kind of rights or moral authority, all it proves is you're sneaky.
This is a crap decision, following on twenty years of previous crap decisions (ProCD vs. Zeidenberg being but one of them).
Schwab
9th circuit decisions (Score:3, Interesting)
The 9th circuit decisions are some of the most overturned in the history of our nation. Seriously, the judges appointed there are completely out of touch with reality, and this will likely be another case that bites it. I wouldn't worry.
Misleading Blurb (Score:3, Insightful)
But, ignoring the actual contents of this article to discuss the bigger issue... This is just another case of shrink-wrap licensing. Take the box home and don't open it, BURN IT. I am sure the cartridge will be none the worse for wear and completely usable.
This isn't that bad (Score:3, Interesting)
The issue here is not whether you own the cartridge. The issue is whether you can return the cartridge to a third party manufacturer. Lexmark with this program is saying "We'll give you a rebate on ink if you promise to return the cartridge only to us." (Lexmark argued before the court that they do not require that the user return the cartridge to them when it is empty, only that if they give the empty cartridge to any company, they give it to Lexmark.)
This "Prebate" license was clearly listed on the outside of the box of the reduced cost toner refills.
So the question is: can a company say "We'll give you a discount on our product if you don't go ahead and use it in this specific way."? And if so, is it "deceptive business practice" to actually attempt to enforce that agreement? Remember, shrinkwrap licenses on the outside of the box have been deemed enforceable contracts by law. You may not like this, but it has been upheld time and again, and the court, like it or not, rules based on precedent and law (no matter what the varied partisan yahoos think).
Seems a lot less draconian now doesn't it? I don't think it's a step in a good direction, necessarily, but to all the people shouting "We own nothing!!!" -- that's not what this is about. Really. Read the decision. It's only 14 pages long.
All that said, it would surprise me if this stood up to appeal (though the makeup of the SCOTUS is enough up in the air that nobody can say anything for sure right now). There is a reason why the 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country, after all. This is quite an odd restriction to be placed upon the consumer, and though I don't know CA law, it wouldn't surprise me if it was eventually considered an undue and unlawful burden and hence the contract isn't valid. However, whether or not the contract is valid, it may be upheld that Lexmark's business practices weren't deceptive, which is what's actually contended here. So we'll have to see if there's an appeal, who ends up on SCOTUS in the coming months, and where it ends up.
But it really isn't the end of the universe guys . . .
Heh (Score:3, Funny)
"You only ink twice, Mr. Bond"
If you read the actual decision (Score:3, Insightful)
According to Lexmark, its post-sale restriction on reusing the Prebate cartridges does not require consumers to return the cartridge at all; it only precludes giving the cartridge to another remanufacturer.
So, no law will prevent you from refilling it yourself; however a commercial venture can't do it.
I code Lexmark replacements chips (Score:5, Informative)
First, nowhere is it stated clearly, but I'm fairly sure they're not talking about inkjet cartridges but laser toners. These are the ones I code replacements for.
The chip in question is the Dallas-Maxim DS2432 [maxim-ic.com]. It's an EEPROM with a twist: it uses some cryptography to perform authentication.
The idea is that the master (in this case the printer) and the memory can negotiate a shared key, which is done in the factory or during testing -- the chip doesn't use public key encryption, so it requires a key exchange `in the open' which must obviously be done before the chip reaches the customer. (Lexmark has done some ugly implementation mistakes in some printers but nothing THAT bad.)
So this key allows authentication of both the printer and the memory. After an authenticated read, the memory must compute a hash of some data (including a nonce and the last page read) and send it to the printer. If the hash matches what the printer was expecting, the printer is sure that the memory knows the shared key. (Unless stupid implementation mistakes are made that open the way for replay attacks.)
Conversely, when the printer asks the memory to commit a write, the memory requests a hash as well, to authenticate the printer. You may ask, `what's the point?' This memory holds data on how many copies were made, serial number and so on. If the memory just blindly wrote what it was told, remanufacturers could keep resetting the contents and reselling the cartridge.
So how do you build a replacement chip? Easy, get the key somehow and implement the protocols used by this memory on a microcontroller. Using an off-the-shelf DS2432 is impossible because these things have serial numbers with a fixed byte (the `family code') which is different from the same byte in Lexmark's DS2432s -- they probably buy so many of them that they were in a position to ask Dallas-Maxim to make batches of chips with modified family codes. A little bit of security by obscurity, but that wasn't a barrier to us -- it took less than a week to reimplement (in assembly) the DS2432 protocols on my favorite microcontroller architecture, the Texas MSP430.
Now, I don't like to get into the politics of this thing. Myself, I believe what I'm doing is perfectly fine and in fact the right of the consumer, EULAs and contracts and patents be damned. I wouldn't do it otherwise. Some people complain that Lexmark sold a discounted toner (called Prebate), on the basis that you would return it to them, and you didn't, and that's unfair. What they don't take into account is that your printer comes loaded with a Prebate cartridge, and with a small amount of toner to boot. Many if not most people just use this one cartridge that came with their printer, and keep remanufacturing it. The customer didn't have a choice in this -- if Lexmark offered a regular toner, or no toner at all, when the customer bought the printer, the situation might be less clearcut. As it stands, I see this as Lexmark forcing everyone to pay for a crippled toner, giving them no choice in the matter, and so they're perfectly justified to remanufacture it. (This might not be considered ethical by some, and is most probably illegal, but I don't care.)
Moreover, the prices they charge are completely absurd. I know this is standard practice in the industry, but I consider this highly immoral. Very few companies possess the technology to make a printer, but many possess the technology to remanufacture toners and cartridges. By imposing legal and technical hurdles on remanufacturing, printer makers are effectively enforcing a monopoly, and the worst thing is, some courts are sanctioning this monopoly. The traditional analogy with auto parts holds very well, and many other frightening scenarios haven't been explored -- what if the printer makers agree on a policy of no longer manufacturing toners and cartridges for printers older than 1 year so as to force everyone to upgrade and m
Mythical paperless office (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, maybe, the promise of the "paperless office" that has been just around the corner for 20 years may become a reality.
I haven't printed 10 pages all year. My three kids, all in high school, have tons of papers to do. And ALL of them are submitted via e-mail or brought in as a file on a USB key, CD or floppy.
The few times I need actual photographs from my digital camera I just upload them to Walmart or Shutterfly and pick them up on the way to or from work.
At the office, maybe 100 pages a month are printed out for 26 employees in a high-tech business. Most of what used to be printed is now
presented on a projector and distributed via FTP or on a CD-R. No more of this "one printed copy per attendee" waste.
Think about it. What really do you need paper copies for? How much do you really print? Vote with your wallet and let the ink companies DCMA themselves out of business.
Good riddance.
-Charles
Sales and marketing materials are mass duplicated at Kinko's
Matress tags (Score:3, Funny)
Recycling, Lexmark and the EPA.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Tough. You asked for it, you'll get it.
Perhaps the EPA needs to contact Lexmark about the enviromental damage that their used cartridges are doing...
If there is no way to legally recycle, then lexmark is creating waste. More than likely toxic waste if you want to get down and dirty with your definitions.
Re:Only a matter of time. (Score:5, Interesting)
Please read ruling before commenting on it. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Please read ruling before commenting on it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Opening a box that you own is not a promise.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Please read ruling before commenting on it. (Score:3, Insightful)
This presumes that there will always be an option, and that they will continue to also offer their products without the restrictive "contracts", but nothing obligates them to do so.
I have no problem with Lexmark's "prebate" program per se. I have an issue with allowing them to print some mumbo-jumbo on the side of the box, and then call that a legal, enforcable contract. If their program were a normal, after-the-fact rebate
Re:Please read ruling before commenting on it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Could be agood thing:
Dear (manufacturer:
I am returning your (5 year old and large hard to recycle device full of toxic material sthat can't be put in a landfill) to you as I am no longer able to comply with the original license.
Sincerely,
So for 10 bucks or so of shipping your disposal probkem becomes theirs.
Re:Only a matter of time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just after taking a few pictures at home of friends or relatives, it is very nice to be able to give them a picture or two without leaving home to run to Walmart or such. $3+ gas prices is another reason to be able to print pictures or other color documents right at home. Some people may also want to snail mail pictures to older relatives or friends who have never touched a computer and likely never will, such as my mother for example.
Re:Only a matter of time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Only a matter of time. (Score:5, Informative)
The "Right to Repair Act"
Your pickup engine has a minor problem, but the only clue is a cryptic "Check Engine" idiot light on the dash. The trouble could be as simple as a stuck PCV valve or faulty plug wire. It might be something more serious (read "costly") such as a confused computer control module, but without a way to read the engine diagnostic codes from the computers--and more importantly, to translate what the codes mean--even diagnosing the defect let alone performing do-it-yourself cost effective repair is impossible, and vehicle makers are downright stingy with the information. Even your local mechanic cannot get the information he needs; it is sealed inside the dealership repair shop--probably in a cipher lock safe.
There ought to be a law.
Well, they are working on one--the Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act.
Since the Act, HR2048, was reintroduced in Congress on May 3 by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), and 22 additional congressmen have signed on as co-sponsors in support of the bill.
HR2048 has garnered support and praise from many quarters, especially from the American Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA).
"We want to thank Representatives Barton, Towns, and Issa for spearheading this crucial piece of legislation that affects everyone who works in the aftermarket," said Kathleen Schmatz, President and CEO of AAIA. "The momentum in support of this bill is incredible as evidenced by the support of 22 additional congressmen. However, our work is just beginning. Based on the strong opposition that the car companies have been expressing on Capital Hill, we will need many more legislators signing on the bill to get it through during the current Congress."
The Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act is truly a bi-partisan bill. Of the 25 congressmen who currently support it, 12 are Democrats, 12 are Republicans, and one is Independent.
The legislation would that require car companies make the same service information and special tools available to independent repair shops as they provide to franchised dealer networks. Architects of the Right to Repair Act added new language to clarify that car company trade secrets are protected unless that information is provided to the franchised new car dealer. New language also provides more detail on the role of the Federal Trade Commission in enforcing the legislation.
"It's not about taking trade secrets and proprietary information from the car companies. These are clearly protected in the legislation," Schmatz said. "It is about fair trade and protecting consumer choice."
Independent repair shops and aftermarket accessory makers are not the only or even the targeted beneficiaries of HR2048. The language of the bill is clear that vehicle *owners* should have access to information whereby to affect repairs. One section states emphatically that vehicle owners should have access to information for "making, or having made, the necessary diagnosis, service, and repair of their motor vehicles in a timely, convenient, reliable, and affordable manner."
Here are some facts from AAIA:
Why This Bill Is Needed
Current automotive technology is being used to successfully "lock out" car owners from being able to repair and maintain their own vehicles. Modern automobiles contain many computers that control virtually every component such as the braking system, steering mechanism, air bags, ignition, and the climate control system.
Lacking the ability to "talk" to the car's computers, owners or their auto technicians cannot accurately diagnose and repair mechanical problems.
This means that later model cars will only be serviced and repaired at automobile dealerships, which makes shopping around for the best prices and most convenien
Re:Only a matter of time. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Only a matter of time. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Mattress Tags Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, the "do not remove under penalty of law" on furniture tags were there for the protection of the consumer; shrink-wrap licenses and this variant are all about limiting the rights of the consumer.
Refilling gas tanks (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fill em up when they are new! (Score:3, Interesting)
If I haven't stopped using it yet, then my first use isn't over...