This is suit that Lexmark International, Inc filed against Static Control Components (SCC), Inc. It is the appeal case, where the court overturns the findings against SCC. Lexmark claims that SCC violates the DMCA by selling printer toner cartridges that work with Lexmark’s printer engine program. Lexmark claims that SCC’s chip violates the DMCA and federal copyright law. Part I A of the case provides a description of the companies and the computer programs and how they work. It also explains Lexmark’s toner cartridges and the chips manufactured by SCC. Part I B is a summary of the proceedings and findings of the district court. Section II says that the district court abused its power and outlines four criteria that have to be fulfilled in order to uphold the preliminary injunction. Part III is the beginning of the decision. The first part of the decision outlines the laws that relevant to the case and what each side has to prove in order to win. The court uses the idea-expression dichotomy and other copyright principles to find that one part of the software, the Toner Loading Program, is not copyrightable. The court also states three errors that the district court made in its ruling on the issue of copyright infringement by SCC. The district court was mistaken about what is protectable and what is not when it comes software copyright. Part C of the decision assesses Lexmark’s counter arguments that support the ruling of the district court. Part D comments on the district court’s response to SCC’s fair use arguments, even thought they were irrelevant because the Toner Loading Program is not copyrightable. The court says the district court was right in the four factors SCC had to have for a successful argument and comments on these. Section IV of the decision looks at the DMCA element of the case. Part IV A looks at the laws and what claims the parties make under these laws. Part B says that reading the printer’s memory, not only by the code, can access the Printer Engine Program because it is not encrypted. Since no security device has to be circumvented to get to the code, SCC is not in violation of the DMCA. The rest of this section looks at Lexmark’s case and responds to it. Part C states that the SCC chip does not provide access to the Printer Engine Program, it instead replaces it. Part D addresses the district court’s assessment of SCC’s case because it could become relevant. The court vacates the preliminary injunction and orders further proceedings.
This case is relevant to my paper because it shows how companies attempt to use the DMCA to prevent aftermarket competition. Even though Lexmark fails, the courts ruling has nothing to do with the DMCA and its wording, rather it is about technicalities in a sense. Lexmark lost its case because one of its programs cannot be copyrighted and the other was not encrypted, not because of interpretation of the DMCA. Even though there are court cases regarding the law and its uses, they are not effective in setting precedents or helping with DMCA interpretation.