Lexmark International Inc. of Lexington, Ky., filed a lawsuit Dec. 30, 2002, against Static Control Components Inc. of Sanford, N.C., over copyright infringement.
The civil case, filed in U.S. District Court, alleges that the smartek™ chips made by Static Control for Lexmark’s T520/620 series printers violate the copyright on that product, both under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Skip London of Static Control confirmed that the company received a copy of the lawsuit on Jan. 2, 2003.
"We’ve been sued for what Lexmark says is copyright infringement. We don’t think we’re infringing on any valid copyright," London said. "We’re obviously going to vigorously defend ourselves."
According to London, a preliminary injunction hearing is set for early February. Until the hearing, Static has agreed to "immediately cease making, selling or otherwise trafficking in the ‘smartek’ microchip…," according to a press release from Lexmark dated Jan. 9.
London said, "Lexmark claims they have a copyright on the chip for the 520, 522, 620 and 622." The aftermarket smartek chips for cartridges for these printers were available from Static in September or October 2002. The suit does not affect Static’s other chips for Lexmark-type cartridges, such as those for the Optra T or Optra Se printer series.
The lawsuit is centered on the technology that allows the aftermarket chip to communicate with the printer and "authenticate" itself. Static’s chip gives access to the full functionality of the printer, including the Toner Loading and Printer Engine Programs, which Lexmark claims are copyrighted.
Industry discussion centers on the role of copyright law and the DMCA, both of which are at issue in this case.
The Lexmark complaint alleges that smartek chips violate normal copyright law because they "contain unauthorized, identical copies of Lexmark’s copyrighted Toner Loading Programs."
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 gives it a slightly different twist, though. Section 1201 specifically indicates, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Tricia Judge, executive director of the I-ITC, said, "The lawsuit is a total misuse of copyright laws and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Those fine laws are meant to protect works of art, music and literature, not a line of code that exists only to lock out competitors."
The complaint that Lexmark filed indicates that "Lexmark utilizes a technological measure, or authentication sequence, to prevent unauthorized access to its Toner Loading Programs and Printer Engine Programs." The complaint continues, "In general, the technological measure, or authentication sequence, requires a ‘secret handshake’ between the printer and toner cartridge to enable printer functionality. … By design, unless this authentication sequence or ‘secret handshake’ takes place successfully, the printer will not recognize the toner cartridge as being an authorized Lexmark toner cartridge, and the printer will not print. The technological measure therefore prevents access to the Toner Loading Program and the Printer Engine Program. The technological measure thereby protects consumers to ensure that they are using genuine Lexmark toner cartridges."
All of these issues appear to refer only to the Lexmark Prebate cartridges. According to Lexmark’s complaint, that "to ensure that consumers return the Prebate cartridges to Lexmark after their initial use, the Prebate toner cartridges have been designed (so they) no longer operate even if ‘refilled’ with toner …." The complaint states that non-Prebate or "Regular" cartridges don’t have that problem, saying that "after its initial use, a Regular toner cartridge may be refilled by the purchaser or a third party."
"(In my opinion,) the question in this litigation is whether the Lexmark ‘secret code’ copyright is enforceable or not" with regard to this technology, said Ira Seaver of Graphic Technologies. "It is an issue that needs to be resolved, as OEM chip makers can increase the level of complexity, and (then) work-around solutions, such as the attachment of a daughter-board, would be eliminated."
For the Static Control press release, see http://www.staticcontrol.com/. The Lexmark press release is available at www.lexmark.com/US/press_releases_details/0,1233,Nzg2fDE=,00.html.
The full 17-page complaint in Lexmark v. Static Control is available in PDF format, and can be downloaded at http://www.politechbot.com/docs/lexmark.complaint.010803.pdf.
Also, CNet has an article about the legal aspects of the case, "Lexmark invokes DMCA in toner suit" at http://news.com.com/2100-1023-979791.html.
The text of the DMCA is available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:
