DMCA ruling against lexmark. Let's talk about satellite.

[KK]

I pulled this link out of dave's P&N DMCA thread.

Copyright officials rule against Lexmark


By JACK KAPICA
Globe and Mail Update

The United States Copyright Office has ruled in favour of Static Control Components, of Sanford, N.C., saying that its microchips do not contravene the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Printer maker Lexmark International had charged that SCC violated the act by making components for use in remanufactured laser printer toner cartridges. Among the components is a chip that mimics the behaviour of one made by Lexmark.

The ruling says that section 1201 of the DMCA allows aftermarket companies to develop software for the purpose of remanufacturing toner cartridges and printers.

SCC argued that Lexmark was trying to shield itself from competition by installing a chip on its toner cartridges to make it difficult for third-party manufacturers to make generic cartridges.

The decision says that SCC is entitled to sell replacement chips for use in used Lexmark toner cartridges.

The DMCA, passed in 1998, allows for review of new types of works that require an exemption for being able to circumvent a technology measure that would control access to a copyrighted work.

Lexmark filed its suit against SCC in December, 2002, saying the DMCA shields itself from competition from the remanufacturing industry.

SCC manufactures components for recovering empty printer cartridges, refurbishing the cartridges and reselling them.

In August, the North Carolina Legislature approved a measure that made the Lexmark Return Program, formerly called the Prebate program, unenforceable in North Carolina.

"We are examining the documents and devoting a large amount of time with our economists and attorneys to calculate the damages that we feel we are entitled to from Lexmark because of their serious misdeeds," SCC CEO Ed Swartz said about the ruling.

Now if I am read this right Lexmark has a chip on their cartridges that would prevent a competitor from using an aftermarket cartridge. Now I'm speculating that lexmark does have a patent on this chip. This other company now mimics that chip and alllows people cheaper refills keeping money away from lexmark. I think you probably see where I'm going with this. Satellite uses a chip that is programmed to decode their signal. How is this different if you program your card/chip yourself for recieving television programming.
Let's hear your thoughts on how this is similar/different than the ruling against Lexmark. Also try to keep it civil, if possible.

KK

 

[Linflas]

You're looking for logic where none exists. Satellite TV was given some extraordinary protections to allow it to take off as a competitor to cable TV. Whether or not I agree with those protections is a moot point since they are currently the law of the land.

 

[KK]

True, they are currently the law of the land, but this ruling, if upheld, may jeopardize that law. It'd be interesting if someone uses that as a defense.

KK

 

[dpm]

I'm confused - are you saying that because Lexmark isn't allowed to use copyright protection to lock out other manufacturers from making supplies for one of its products, you should be allowed to make your own satellite decoder cards?

Well, it would mean that, I guess - as long as you keep paying the satellite company. Otherwise it would be like saying that the Cinema should let you in if you print off your owns tickets and don't bother about paying them.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: dpm
I'm confused - are you saying that because Lexmark isn't allowed to use copyright protection to lock out other manufacturers from making supplies for one of its products, you should be allowed to make your own satellite decoder cards?

Well, it would mean that, I guess - as long as you keep paying the satellite company. Otherwise it would be like saying that the Cinema should let you in if you print off your owns tickets and don't bother about paying them.

What I'm saying is that lexmark made this chip to ensure people would keep buying refills produced by them, keeping others from stealing their marketshare. Think of it as a subscription, you buy a printer, you can print 400 photos, then you have to buy Lexmark ink to keep printing. This parallels this technology of satellite. I'm trying to see what you are meaning with the cinema tickets, but failing to realize what you mean. Could you break it down alittle more, I haven't had much sleep.

KK

 

[Codewiz]

Your logic is flawed. The printer is the delivery system for the ink. They are allowing other companies to provide ink for the delivery system.

With sat tv you are stealing the only product when you copy the smartcard. If someone created their own company that provided their own sat feed AND a card that worked in a directv or Dish network tv receiver then they would have a chance to win.

Your analogy doesn't work.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Your logic is flawed. The printer is the delivery system for the ink. They are allowing other companies to provide ink for the delivery system.

With sat tv you are stealing the only product when you copy the smartcard. If someone created their own company that provided their own sat feed AND a card that worked in a directv or Dish network tv receiver then they would have a chance to win.

Your analogy doesn't work.

How I am viewing this is that the printer is the reciever, a universal device that performs an action based upon the program written to the chip. Lexmark is claiming they own the program on that chip that allow for the printer to only function using this program. Now company C has a chip that bypasses this technology and is selling them, cutting out of Lexmarks profits. We all know ink is where they make their money. I guess it comes down to if you think the signal broadcasted out is public domain or not. Personally I don't believe you can own a signal that is located anywhere the sky is in view. I think the satellite companies had a better case using the defense that they owned the program on the cards than them owning the signal. Actual, I do not know really if they ever claimed to own the actual frequency of the signal. We know they have the FCC permission to broadcast it though.

Do you that think that Lexmark printers should only be able to use their ink?

KK

 

[C'DaleRider]

Well, if you feel so strongly about the case referred to applying to satellite TV reception, why don't you follow up by writing both Dish Network and DirecTV and tell them you are using the case to justify producing SmartCards to receive and descramble their signal without their authorization. I'm sure they'll just fall over themselves with "Oh, of course you're right. How silly of us to think we can justify having people pay for this service."

Just make sure you include your REAL name and address. I'd be curious how quickly a restraining order shows up at your door.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
Well, if you feel so strongly about the case referred to applying to satellite TV reception, why don't you follow up by writing both Dish Network and DirecTV and tell them you are using the case to justify producing SmartCards to receive and descramble their signal without their authorization. I'm sure they'll just fall over themselves with "Oh, of course you're right. How silly of us to think we can justify having people pay for this service."

Just make sure you include your REAL name and address. I'd be curious how quickly a restraining order shows up at your door.

I wouldn't have a problem using my real name and address, as they won't find anything here. It's the principal of them saying they own all the signal they are broadcasting, and that you cannot recieve it in on your own property. Regular local TV channels are broadcasted over the open air, yet those are legal to recieve, and you don't pay for them. I don't have a problem with them encrypted their signal so much that no one without a subscription couldn't decypher it. I'd rather have them do that them suing people for recieving their signal. And this case with Lexmark is basically invalidating ownership of a programmed chip to bypass the intend use of printers functionality. Very similiar to the concept of satellite.

KK

 

[rahvin]

This case has NO similarity. It is not illegal nor has it ever been to use different ink with a printer. It has always been illegal to recieve sattalite signals without permission. This is completely independent of encryption or chips or anything. The smart cards in satalitte prevent you from doing something illegal, the chips in the printer cartiridges don't prevent you from doing something illegal, see the difference?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: rahvin
This case has NO similarity. It is not illegal nor has it ever been to use different ink with a printer. It has always been illegal to recieve sattalite signals without permission. This is completely independent of encryption or chips or anything. The smart cards in satalitte prevent you from doing something illegal, the chips in the printer cartiridges don't prevent you from doing something illegal, see the difference?

I see you say legal this, illegal that. And thats the basis of why it's different. What if the government deemed that you couldn't use second hand ink cartridges for printers that had such security features installed to prevent the use of second hand cartridges? Would you agree with that? I'm sure lexmark didn't put this out there for any other reason than to prevent someone from using second hand cartridges. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if you couldn't use your own printer you have bought any way you want to in the privacy of your home.


KK

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Your logic is flawed. The printer is the delivery system for the ink. They are allowing other companies to provide ink for the delivery system.

With sat tv you are stealing the only product when you copy the smartcard. If someone created their own company that provided their own sat feed AND a card that worked in a directv or Dish network tv receiver then they would have a chance to win.

Your analogy doesn't work.

How I am viewing this is that the printer is the reciever, a universal device that performs an action based upon the program written to the chip. Lexmark is claiming they own the program on that chip that allow for the printer to only function using this program. Now company C has a chip that bypasses this technology and is selling them, cutting out of Lexmarks profits. We all know ink is where they make their money. I guess it comes down to if you think the signal broadcasted out is public domain or not. Personally I don't believe you can own a signal that is located anywhere the sky is in view. I think the satellite companies had a better case using the defense that they owned the program on the cards than them owning the signal. Actual, I do not know really if they ever claimed to own the actual frequency of the signal. We know they have the FCC permission to broadcast it though.

Do you that think that Lexmark printers should only be able to use their ink?

KK

You are missing what I am saying........

This third party company is providing the chip AND the ink. The way you are talking it would be like this company going to the lexmark factory, stealing the ink and using their own chip. Then selling it all as their own. I think the ink in this case is the actual video signal. It is the only actual product. You use the printer to use the ink to make pictures. You use the receiver, dish, and card to use the signal to produce tv signals.

Like I said before, you might have a case for the sat industry IF the company provided not only the card but the signal also. Then they just used the receiver as their means of displaying the signal.

I am not argueing with you because I agree with Directv or Dish. I honestly feel that all the signals should be public domain. If they don't want the public to use them without permission then they need to protect it better.

There are C-Band videocypher systems that have NEVER been hacked. So if they want to keep people out then invest in better technology instead of sueing people.

 

[tcsenter]

This other company now mimics that chip and alllows people cheaper refills keeping money away from lexmark. I think you probably see where I'm going with this. Satellite uses a chip that is programmed to decode their signal. How is this different if you program your card/chip yourself for recieving television programming. Let's hear your thoughts on how this is similar/different than the ruling against Lexmark. Also try to keep it civil, if possible.

Your argument is the equivalent of flipping through a medical handbook, stopping on a page and gleaning from it that a particular drug is used to treat a particular illness, then presuming that all illnesses are treated by that drug.

The DMCA is but one statute among many statutes, codes, legal principles, and court cases which regulate trade practices and patent infringement issues. There is no one overriding law or court case that applies universally to all manners of trade, copyright, trademark, and patent concerns. There is one law for this, another for that, another for those, a couple for these, so on and so forth.