xyzzyyzzyx writes:
The case, Lexmark_Int'l_v._Static_Control_Components, brought before the U.S. Supreme Court has been handed down as a loss for DMCA encryption and hopefully a further loss for proprietary printer cartridge litigation itself.
Read through the terse unanimous judgement here.
Any day Lexmark loses due to its monopolistic practices is a good one to me.
[Editor's Comment]:
IANAL. The wikipedia link provides a very good summary of the case, but essentially it revolves around Lexmark producing ink cartridges which contain measures intended to ensure that only their cartridges work in their printers. Static Control Components managed to produce cartridges which defeated the Lexmark protection, and Lexmark initiated legal action against them. Having been through, as I understand it, the full range of legal options - and having had previous decisions overturned - the final outcome is that Static Control Components is judged to have not committed an offence under the DMCA and it also shows that in the court's view, preventing the use of alternative ink cartridges is not a thing that is in the customer's best interests and is therefore frowned upon . However, if anyone with a better understanding of the US legal system or who is able to decipher all the implications of the judgement wishes to correct my assessment then I would welcome their input to the debate.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Wednesday March 26 2014, @04:52PM
Hopefully Keurig takes a good hard look at this decision before going forward with their own version of DMCA competition lockout, as discussed a few weeks ago: http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/03/03/196 210 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Wednesday March 26 2014, @04:59PM
There's zero DCMA ruling here.
The overall case hinges very much on the application of the DCMA. But that's not what was appealed to the Supreme Court or what was ruled on here.
As part of the original court case, Static Controls sought to bring counterclaims against Lexmark under the Lanham act, which covers trademark issues and misrepresentation.
The district court dismissed those Lanham Act counterclaims, on the theory that Static Controls lacked standing to bring them, based on whether they could show "harm" under the statute. After both parties appealed the district court's judgement, the 6th Circuit ruled that the district court erred in dismissing those claims, and Static Controls should be allowed to pursue them.
Lexmark appealed the ruling that Static Controls had standing to sue for trademark infringement/deceptive practices. The Supreme Court ruled that, yes, the question of standing should be read in favor of Static Controls.
The court's ruling has little to do directly with the DCMA. They did not hold Lexmark liable. They did not even rule that Static Controls was in fact damaged (a requirement for them to bring relief). They ruled Static Controls has sufficient standing to present a CASE that they were damaged and entitled to relief under the Lanham act.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:35PM
I guess that what is interesting in this ruling is that SC obviously reverse engineered Lexmarks DRM, something, unless I'm very mistaken is prohibited under the DMCA.
I wonder if this ruling can be used to argue that br/dvd ripping software is ok.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @06:27PM
Please,
it's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, D M C A, not DCMA.
stop making my eyes bleed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:06PM
Actually the lower court's ruling in favor of Lexmark's copyright claims was reversed by the appeals court in 2004. They found that Lexmark was unlikely to prevail at trial on their claims, including those based on the DMCA. That ruling was made in 2004. Opinion can be found here:
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/L exmark_v_Static_Control/20041026_Ruling.pdf [eff.org]
Lexmark failed to appeal that ruling, ending its copyright case.
This case, as was pointed out above, deals with the counterclaim of Static Controls against Lexmark for Lexmark's violation of antitrust law and unfair competition. With this recent ruling by the Supreme Court they can now proceed on that claim, calling Lexmark to account for what appear to have been some very bad behavior on its part.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:23PM
So is this one of those situations where LexMark will sell the printer at a loss, in the hopes of making a profit on sale of cartridges?
If that's the case, we should all go and buy one of their printers, and then only ever buy ink from the alternative company.
Seriously, how the hell could anyone arguing that adding a layer of pointless obfuscation to a product could ever be in the customer's best interest? But then I guess we've already been through this with DRM.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:50PM
Wonder what it's like when they're verbose...
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:55PM
Only in law do they write a 50-page document and call it a "brief."
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Subsentient on Thursday March 27 2014, @12:44AM
Sounds suspiciously like scrotum.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @05:13AM
That's Static Control Components of Sanford, North Carolina in Lee County [wikimedia.org], which is right next to Wake County [wikimedia.org] (where Raleigh is, Home of Red Hat, Inc.).
See, every once in a while something good DOES come out of The Old North State.
It's kinda like a busted clock that's right twice a day.
-- gewg_