Appeals Court Declines Rehearing in Toner Cartridge Lawsuit

AP ^ | AP-ES-02-21-05 2348EST

[TheOtherOne]

Appeals Court Declines Rehearing in Toner Cartridge Lawsuit
The Associated Press
Published: Feb 21, 2005 LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) - A federal appeals court has refused to reconsider its ruling that allowed a North Carolina company to make and sell computer chips that enable recycled toner cartridges to work in Lexmark International printers.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati allows Static Control Components of Sanford, N.C., to keep competing for the remanufactured cartridge business.

Lexington-based Lexmark filed suit in 2002 accusing Static Control of violating copyright law along with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

U.S. District Judge Karl Forester issued a preliminary injunction in March 2004 blocking Static Control from selling the computer chips.

The appeals court overturned that decision in October and upheld its decision on Feb. 15.

"They can ask the Supreme Court to consider the case but no guarantee they will even hear the case," Static Control lawyer Skip London said. "We are extremely pleased."

AP-ES-02-21-05 2348EST

[clee1]

This could end the practice of giving away the printer and raping customers for the consumables.

[Anti-Bubba182]

It is about time.

[TheOtherOne]

Any electronics which tell a printer that a cartride is empty when it is not shold be against the law for theft.

[PURPLE SHARK]

Soon it will be buy a toner cartridge and get a free printer.
Hope this helps.

[xm177e2]

This could end the practice of giving away the printer and raping customers for the consumables.

Or, instead of demonizing Lexmark, you could, you know, buy a printer from another company that doesn't do what they do. Lexmark is the worst in this regard... so don't buy from them any more!

It's not that I disagree with the verdict, but the word choice... "raping"????

[clee1]

Demonizing Lexmark??? I didn't mention Lexmark specifically because ALL printer companies do the same thing.

OK... delete "raping" and insert "fleecing". Feel better? A rose by any other name... etc.

Charging $70 for $1.50 worth of plastic and $4 worth of toner powder feels like "rape" to me.

[FactsMatter]

If lexmark had one almost overnight most new cars would come with such chips embedded in all user replaceable parts and your car would refuse to start unless you have 'authorized' parts installed.

[freepatriot32]

It looks like the courts are gutting the dmca and not amoment to soon. Im stunned they finally got a verdict right for a change thats about as rare as seeing haleys comet anymore.

[DB]

Well there will be major problems with this ruling.

The copyrighted code in the hardware key in the cartridge is no longer protected under copyright law. There are many uses for these hardware keys, not just printer cartridges. With this ruling nothing protects all the other uses. Lots of software is protected by hardware keys (aka dongle).

While I think it is really tacky of some of the printer companies in doing this, I think they should be punished by the market and not the courts. And by doing so in the courts makes bad law.

I use hardware keys embedded in our communications products. This is done to make it more difficult for the Chinese (and others) to mass produce our designs/products without permission.

[FactsMatter]

lexmark had to use the DMCA (government intervention in the market) to bring this suit. This is just putting things back the way they where before this. If you read the ruleing I think you will find that since your dongles are used to provent copies of a software product they are still covered by normal copyright laws. From the web: "Judge Merritt in his concurring opinion spoke out strongly against the use of the DMCA as a monopolist's tool. By contrast, Lexmark would have us read this statute in such a way that any time a manufacturer intentionally circumvents any technological measure and accesses a protected work it necessarily violates the statute regardless of its "purpose." Such a reading would ignore the precise language – "for the purpose of" – as well as the main point of the DMCA – to prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, music, and computer programs. If we were to adopt Lexmark's reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes. "

[DB]

I hope you're right. In law it always seems that when a new threshold is crossed, it is pushed further and further until all previous distinctions are gone.

[FactsMatter]

Also this case was mainly about lexmark trying to restrict competition and the sale of parts that were meant to be replaced by the user not about companies hardware protecting their code.




I am tired so that may not be the most clear thing I have ever written :)

[GretchenM]

Some of the definitions of rape found here:
http://ie.thefreedictionary.com/rape

Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
To plunder or pillage.

[BlackbirdSST]

This could end the practice of giving away the printer and raping customers for the consumables.

AFT! Blackbird.

[talmand]

If you think your nice preventive measure and US law will stop the Chinese from duplicating your products then I think you have a surprise in store for you. I have seen several reports showing that the Chinese have a strong piracy / knock-off industry going strong with no indication the government intends to stop it.

Good luck suing them in their courts. Good luck getting them to come here.

[JoJo Gunn]

....and your car would refuse to start unless you have 'authorized' parts installed.

Sounds akin to Big Brother XP....

[DB]

Key words: "This is done to make it more difficult ..."

That's all I can do.

[talmand]

Very true. We all do our best.