Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
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, Informative) by MrGuy on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:59PM
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, @01:35PM
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, @02:27PM
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, @09:06AM
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.