Lexmark has just won an injunction against
the company Static Control Components that
will put a stop to them selling the Smartek computer chip. This chip can be installed into a Lexmark
printer so that the printer will work with cheaper recycled toner cartridges.
Sounds like a good thing right? Not as far as Lexmark is concerned. The
way there business model works right now is to sell you the printer as cheap as possible then make a mint as you
churn through low-capacity, high-priced ink and toner cartridges. Those
low, low prices you see advertised in computer stores are often just the tip of
the iceberg of the full costs to owning the printer. If you are buying cheaper,
recycled, re-filled cartridges then Lexmark ultimately will lose money on your
purchase. If you ask me, it sounds like a problem with their business model,
rather than another companies ability to produce a product, sell it cheaper, and
still make money.
For a while the printer companies had nothing to worry
about. Their business model seemed to work well. They sell you the printer for
less than $100.. you are overjoyed... until you find out that your printer
either doesn't come with ink/toner or the cartridge is only partially filled(!).
Then you find out that typical cartridges are in the $30 to $100 range. Hmm.
Seems a little deceptive, no? Others thought so.. and some enterprising
individuals made it possible to buy ink and toner replacement kits. Just squirt
the colours into the right compartments, or pour the toner into the cartridge
opening and away you go. Other companies offered to take in your old cartridges
and then gave you some newly refilled ones for a much reduced price. This could
easily save you $100s of dollars a year.
The printer companies were not
happy. They retaliated by making any new cartridges sealed and very difficult
to access. No way to open it without destroying the cartridge. But if you think
about it, if the ink or toner can get out onto the paper when printing... then
it must be able to get back in the same way -- perhaps just not as easily
as with older cartridges. A few special tools and the ink-sellers and cartridge
recyclers were back in business.
Eventually the printer companies went
high tech and embedded special computer chips into the cartridges that monitor
the ink-level. The printers had corresponding chips and the printer chips talks to the cartridge chips and they became
good buddies. There were different approaches, but in essence the cartridge
chips refused to acknowledge new ink within themselves and once they determined they were empty they would tell the printer chip and the printer would just refuse to use that cartridge anymore. No
amount of prodding would convince the printer otherwise.
There were more
retaliations.. like cartridge ink/toner level chip-resetters that electronically
re-program the cartridge chips to think they are full again... but the company
Static Control Components had a better idea. Instead of worrying about the
cartridge chips.. they looked at the chip on the printer that talks to
the cartridge chips. This is a classic software cracking maneuver. Instead of
trying to figure out where a software serial number is stored, generated and
validated.. a potentially complex process, you just modify the function that
checks where the serial number is stored, generated and validated and
force it to always return something appropriate.
This is what Static
Control Components did. They designed a chip to replace the ink/toner-level
checking chip that resides in the printer. At this point the chip can completely
ignore the level the cartridge claims to be and just tell the printer to use the
cartridge. With such a chip installed, there was nothing preventing you from
using the refill inks and recycled cartidges again.
Which is why Lexmark
took Static Control Components to court. There were likely two good reasons for
this. First, it made more sense to take the litigation route than to invest in
sneakier more devious cartridge protection systems. As technical as the
protections became, people always managed to workaround them. Second, until this
time, Lexmark had no legal reason to take anybody to court. What makes the
latest developments different is that Static Control Components apparently had
to reverese-engineer the chip that resides within the printer. It makes sense.
It isn't as if Lexmark is going to produce stats on how the chip works. But
according to the Digital Millenium
Copyright Act, a highly controversial piece of legislation introduced in
1998, you aren't allowed to reverse-engineer a technological measure put in
place to protect copyright. This was originally intended to prevent people from
doing things like cracking the encryption on DVDs and distributing a non-
encrypted version. Who knew it would apply to computer chips in printers to
protect an aging, faulty business model? If this continues to be succesfully upheld,
then we can likely expect to see this become a common way for companies to
prevent competitors or anybody else from infringing on their market share. Wrap your
interface within a hardware chip or obfuscated code and you've created a tripwire
for legal action under the DMCA.
It isn't an issue of copyright. It's an issue of money and greed and silly
exploitable laws.
1 Comments
Leave a comment
Categories
Monthly Archives
- March 2008 (3)
- January 2008 (1)
- August 2007 (1)
- May 2007 (1)
- August 2006 (7)
- December 2005 (5)
- November 2005 (4)
- October 2005 (1)
- January 2005 (1)
- November 2004 (3)
- October 2004 (4)
- August 2004 (10)
- July 2004 (1)
- June 2004 (11)
- May 2004 (5)
- April 2004 (14)
- March 2004 (17)
- February 2004 (1)
- October 2003 (9)
- July 2003 (1)
- June 2003 (7)
- May 2003 (11)
- April 2003 (8)
- March 2003 (1)
- February 2003 (20)
- January 2003 (28)
- December 2002 (7)
- November 2002 (26)
- October 2002 (13)
- September 2002 (4)
- August 2002 (8)
- July 2002 (10)
- June 2002 (23)
- May 2002 (22)
- April 2002 (23)
- March 2002 (7)
- February 2002 (25)
- January 2002 (51)
- November 2001 (3)
Pages
Search
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Dylan published on February 28, 2003 6:01 PM.
New Fangled Designs was the previous entry in this blog.
Changelists is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Hi
I have a certain query regarding the legality component attached to coming up on
a) resetting solutions and
b) reprogramming solutions of the HP C8061X toner cartridge(HP 4100).
As in the case of the Lexmark issue, is there a similar legality which can cause a legal blow up (as in the Lexmark case)if one comes out with resetting or reprogramming solutions?
In either of this cases is there any transgression of the IPR or DCMA clauses.
If we could access the HP program and works backward to a reprogramming solution will there be any hassles in bringing such an option into the marketplace and selling the chip of 61X.
Look forward to an early clarification from anyone who has a clue on this aspect of the legality in the industry.
Please advise on the email: emptycartridges2003@yahoo.com