Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
r00t writes:
"Taking a page out of Lexmark playbook, the Keurig company, famous for it's one-cup coffee making system, now comes with new and improved 100% DRM. Apparently, Keurig is upset over re-usable third-party 'coffee pods' which allow the consumer to escape the Keurig throw-away models which carry a retail price 5% to 25% more. Keurig's CEO, Brian Kelly referred to the move as 'game-changing performance.' Perhaps this will finally be the year of Linux on the Coffe Maker?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
DRM: Coming to a Coffee Maker Near You
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1000 moderator points
| 86 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm not a robot like you. I don't like having disks crammed into me... unless they're Oreos, and then only in the mouth.
-- Fry
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday March 03 2014, @08:01PM
Its going to be RFID, or optical. Chances are the detector will be deeply embedded in
the machine so you can't get at it.
I suspect they will claim that defeating it violate the DMCA, but since the only purpose
of this chip will be to make sure you only pound Their nails with Their hammer, I suspect
it will fail in court. There is no copyright or patent involved in using a different
source of coffee. If there were, they would go after the suppliers.
This backfires faster than New Coke.
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Monday March 03 2014, @08:20PM
Yeah, but none of what you said makes jack diddly *%&$ of difference in court.
The DMCA is so wonderful in that regard to the IP holders. All of the arguments about whether it should be protected fall on deaf ears in the courts. It's still fundamentally unlawful to bypass copyright protection measures .
It's one of the few legal situations in which if you run into a building saving old ladies and kittens left and right, that it was still illegal to enter the building period.
They, the legislators, made it unlawful to even touch the lock with anything but a key. Even if the lock is just a flimsy piece of wet cardboard that a 5 year old could bypass. Not just security through obscurity, but security through inane laws.
Next thing you know, and just you watch, that Keurig will require the Internet and the ability to phone home and authorize the unit to produce coffee. It's just so blindingly insane and stupid it could work! Their stock will go up, even though the investors first cognitive dissonant thought is, "I should buy the cheap coffee and not use these idiots".
Of course, all that being said, I would *LOVE* to see Keurig find somebody and take them to court over it. I'll make popcorn (not with that microwave that only recognizes Orville Redenbacher's)
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Monday March 03 2014, @08:27PM
I will remind you that Lexmark LOST in court.
So apparently it DOES make a difference.
Read the lexmark decision. Link in the summary.
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday March 03 2014, @08:37PM
Really? That's awesome.
I've never heard of the DMCA losing in court like that. They've always just won on the technicality that the copyright protection measures were bypassed, and that was against the law.
Apple was the only notable exception to that rule with the justices saying that jailbreaking was acceptable, even though they failed to apply that same logic equally to Non-apple technology.
Cool. Something in our favor for once.
(Score: 1) by cykros on Tuesday March 04 2014, @01:31PM
I'm not so sure this falls under the scope of the DMCA even a little, as there's no copyright at work here to begin with. Patents, perhaps, though I'd assume that if the third party refills were in violation of patents in the first place, they'd be getting dealt with that way.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday March 04 2014, @03:07PM
My understanding is that the DMCA protects the hardware irrespective of the content being protected. Even if there is Public Domain inside, or maybe even your own property (licensed or otherwise), that bypassing the lock itself is a separate crime.
However, Frojack (I think I spelled that right) pointed out that Lexmark had lost a case. Which does set some precedence. Only other precedence I was aware of was a one-off with iPhone jailbreaking that wasn't evenly applied to the rest of technology.