A few years ago, Lexmark came up with a technological way to make sure that customers didn't get their discounted cartridges refilled. It added security chips to the cartridge and the printer. If the chips didn't execute a secret handshake, the cartridge wouldn't work. If the cartridge had been refilled, the chips wouldn't let the printer operate.
Although the recycling business was initially threatened by this, Static Control soon provided a solution with its own chip, which mimicked Lexmark's. That meant Lexmark printers would accept secondhand cartridges made by Static Control's customers.
"They tried to keep us out, we got in, and they didn't like it," said Static Control founder and CEO Ed Swartz.
Lexmark responded with a lawsuit, filed at the end of December. Lexmark is accusing Static Control of violating the DMCA by deciphering its access code in order to mimic the secret handshake.
The recharging industry believes its entire existence would be threatened by a Lexmark victory. "Like it or not, we as an industry are at war," proclaimed the February issue of Imaging Spectrum Magazine.
For Lexmark, the disdain is mutual. "The rechargers wouldn't be around if it weren't for the intellectual property investments we've made," spokesman Roger Rydell said.
Lexmark executives declined to discuss the legal aspects of the case. Yet even some of its opponents concede that the company's DMCA claim is at least plausible.
"If Lexmark didn't use this law, it would be a bad business practice for them and tantamount to malpractice on the part of their lawyers," said Peter Jaszi, an American University law professor who has filed a brief on behalf of Static Control.
Yet should Lexmark prevail, Jaszi added, "this is just the entering wedge. So much stuff in our environment is computer-enabled in one way or another." For example, he asked, why wouldn't auto companies install a chip in their tires to make sure that consumers couldn't use any other brand when they had a flat?
The DMCA has been a source of contention since it was passed, with some critics contending that it created a chilling effect on researchers, and others asserting that it reduced a consumer's traditional right to do just about whatever he wanted with material he had paid for. But these recent cases take the law far afield.
