It’s been an interesting ride. In December of 2002, Lexmark, maker of Lexmark printers and Lexmark printer cartridges, filed suit again Static Control Components. The contention of the printer manufacturing giant was that Static Control was violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by producing and selling computer chips that used computer code developed by Lexmark. The Smartek chip produced by Static Control allows third party printer cartridges to operate with Lexmark printers.
The code, which Static Control admits was copied directly from Lexmark’s own chips, is designed to ensure that only Lexmark printer cartridges can be used with Lexmark printers. What seems on the surface a fairly simple, cut and dried case of copyright infringement has bounced back and forth from court to court for the past two-and-a-half years. The implications of any rulings made in the case, it seems, extend far beyond the right of third party manufacturers to create printer cartridges that can replace Lexmark printer cartridges in Lexmark printers. It extends beyond the right of printer manufacturers to protect their profits in the lucrative printer supplies market – which conservative estimates place at over 50% of the profits in the entire photo imaging field. According to expert commentators on both sides of the case, what is at stake is a free, open and competitive marketplace – not just for Lexmark printer cartridges, but for ALL products.
You see, the case hinges on a little computer chip that Lexmark installs on some of its printers and some Lexmark printer cartridges. The chip contains a program that allows the printer and cartridge to communicate with each other – more specifically, it allows the cartridge to tell the printer, “Hey, I’m a real Lexmark printer cartridge!” And without that little piece of plastic and metal on the cartridge, the printer won’t work.
In other words, it’s a computer chip that Lexmark installed for the specific purpose of not allowing any third party printer cartridges to work with its printer. And what Static Control did was copy that code for its own computer chips and sell them to third party manufacturers so that their printer cartridges would work in Lexmark printers just as well as Lexmark printer cartridges. Lexmark claims that that is an infringement of its copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that is meant to protect intellectual property. Static Control claims that the DMCA wasn’t meant to enable manufacturers to make it impossible for third parties to create equipment that can be used in their products.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. If the courts rule in Lexmark’s favor, say many critics, they are essentially setting a precedent whereby any manufacturer of any product can use similar technology to prevent competition for end-user business. The eventual outcome, they say, could be a Ford auto chip that locks the wheels on a Ford automobile if the car owner tries to use any tires other than Ford tires.
So far, both sides have claimed victories in the case – small victories. The court originally issued an injunction to stop Static Control from selling the Smartek chip. The Copyright Office refused to issue a guideline that protects the right of third party manufacturers to ‘reverse engineer’ software stating that the right is already protected by a provision that allows for software to be reverse engineered if the purpose is to make it work with other products.
Static Control has since written its own software that interacts with three Lexmark printer cartridges (one more Lexmark printer cartridge than it had provided before). The new software contains no code written by Lexmark, but interacts with the Lexmark printers the same as the chip that’s embedded in a Lexmark printer cartridge. It could make the whole suit moot. Whether Lexmark continues with the suit in light of this new development, the winners are consumers who will have a choice when it’s time to replace their Lexmark printer cartridge.
