[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss] more dmca nonsense--Lexmark printers
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: [dvd-discuss] more dmca nonsense--Lexmark printers
- From: Jeremy Erwin <jerwin(at)ponymail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:25:54 -0500
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Lexmark, like many printer manufacturers has obviously adopted the
"sell the razor at a loss, but make money on selling blades... Now, a
printer manufacturer can do a great many things to jumpstart this
revenue generation, starting with only equipping printers with
partially full cartridges.
Of course, this is problematic, because a inkjet cartridge can be
refilled, inexpensively, with ink. So in order to protect this dubious
marketing decision, the cartridges are equiped with special chips, so
that only certified (i.e. expensive, proprietary) ink replenishment
techniques are used.
Similarly, under the guise of stopping piracy, game machines check that
only certified programs are run.
And the chips are (or so Lexmark claims) protected by the DMCA.
Lexmark claims that licensed cartridge manufacturers have signed
various contracts that forbid ink replenishment. Thus the printer
checks the contract (chip), and assumes that if the chip responds
properly, the cartridge inks and components are properly licenced--
i.e. making Lexmark a lot of money, No contract-- no ink.
In the past, we were free to ignore unenforceable, laughable contracts.
The DMCA puts a lawyer in our electronic devices, pushing such
contracts in our faces.