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.
Skip London of Static Control confirmed that the company received a copy of the lawsuit on Jan. 2, 2003, but has not been officially served with it yet.
"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 in the case was originally planned for Jan. 9, but is being "rescheduled for sometime in the next two to three weeks.
"Lexmark claims they have a copyright on the chip for the 520, 522, 620 and 622," which were available from Static in September or October 2002, London said. 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.
An October 2002 press release touted the T520/620 chips, saying that "Since the smartek chip is a 100 percent new product, no OEM chip is required." It also indicates that the chips work "with all current engine firmware versions, preventing the potential for the 'unsupported print cartridge — error 32' message." The aftermarket chip or a hybrid combination of a used OEM and aftermarket chip is necessary because inserting a remanufactured cartridge (with a used non-Prebate OEM chip) into the printer results in an "invalid refill" error code, and the printer does not function.
The lawsuit is centered on the technology that allows the aftermarket chip to communicate with the printer and "authenticate" itself, industry insiders say. In November 2002, Static Control began a campaign advertising that while some thought it might take years to break the T520/620 chips' "'secret code,'" that Static had the chips available.
"(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 work-around solutions, such as the attachment of a daughter-board, would be eliminated."
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."
Industry discussion centers on whether the chip and its technology can be copyrighted. Generally, copyright applies to the communication of ideas (but not the ideas themselves), and patents apply to a specific technology.
The Copyright.gov Web site explains, "Inventions are subject matter for patents, not copyrights." It also says that, "Section 102 of the copyright law, title 17, United States Code, clearly expresses this principle: 'In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle or discovery….'"
For more information, see the February issue of Recharger Magazine.
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 interesting article about the legal aspects of the case, "Lexmark invokes DMCA in toner suit."Editor's Note: This article is free for use by all remanufacturers for publicity or other purposes. Feel free to post this article on your site or to provide it to your customers, but please credit Recharger Magazine.
