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.

This article looks at how the DMCA provides a super-monopoly that is a viable method of doing business and bypasses the inconveniences of copyright and patents by protecting things that were once allowed. The article analyzes current court cases and shows how they have yet to rule out the so-called super-monopoly that the DMCA allows. The first section of the article explains the DMCA and what it does. It also explains how companies use the first part of section 1201 (1201 (a)) as a means of monopolizing their market. The first case that the paper examines is Lexmark v. Static Control. Lexmark makes their money through the after market sales of their toner cartridges and replacement parts. However, there are many companies that sell toner cartridges that are Lexmark compatible. Lexmark created a Printer Engine Program to combat this and make their cartridges the only ones that work with their printers. This copyrighted software works with a chip in the toner cartridge and prevents the printer from working with any other cartridge or with an empty cartridge. Static Control is a company that sold chips to companies that refurbished Lexmark Cartridges. These chips allowed the cartridges to be accepted by Lexmark’s software control program. The courts first ruled that Static Control violated the DMCA. The appeal overturned this decision because of failures with Lexmark’s software and the fact that they were not encrypted or necessarily copyrightable. The programs that Lexmark used only protected one type of access, and left other methods open. The second legal example is The Chamberlain Group vs. Skylink. Chamberlain wanted to control the garage door remote control market and sued Skylink over a remote control that opened doors with a digital security feature. The court ruled in favor of Skylink because the unauthorized copying that Chamberlain sued under did not involve copyright infringement, so it was not covered by the DMCA. The next section of the paper outlines how you can effectively create a super-monopoly. The first strategy is to copyright the software for the product and its replacement pieces. A part of this software has to contain a secret code that unlocks the main software. The second tip is to write long and inefficient programs. These programs are more likely to be copyrightable because they have original expression. They are also harder to reverse engineer and cannot be used because they are the most efficient. The third suggestion is to include non-functional code in the program so there is evidence if another company directly copies your program. The fourth way is to encrypt copyright programs. This prevents people from accessing the program itself. Fifth is not making the “key” dependent on the entire program in the parts. Code inputs should be stored elsewhere on the chip. The sixth and seventh methods are avoid licensing that allows continued use of copyright programs and sell the main unit and main program separately. The article concludes that the DMCA allows companies to monopolize their aftermarket.
This article is a good example of how the DMCA can be manipulated in a very effective manner. The DMCA is a tool that creates a new business model of monopolization, and this article is evidence of that. The court cases show how the courts have not ruled on the DMCA itself, they have only applied it to situations. The paper outlines how to avoid loopholes and make your business plan sound under the DMCA in order to create a monopoly. The DMCA has clearly created a new way of doing and controlling business that is contrary to the original intentions of copyright law.

This is Title 17. Copyrights, Chapter 12. Copyright Protection and Management systems. Section 1201 outlines the circumvention of copyright protection systems. It focuses on what violates the circumvention part of the act. This part of the DMCA states that you cannot circumvent a technological measure that exists to control access to copyrighted work that is protected by the DMCA. This part of the DMCA also makes products that circumvent copyright protection illegal. It states that you cannot make, trade or sell programs that are primarily designed to circumvent copyright protection, such as programs that break encoding and that do not have any commercially significant use outside of circumventing copyright protection technology. The section then goes on to define what the word circumvention means in this context. One cannot create something that disarms any protection on the copyrighted work without permission of the authors. Examples such as decrypting and descrambling are given. The section also states that this does not violate and rights that come with copyright including fair use and free speech. The chapter also provides exemptions for nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions to the first provision of the chapter with limitations. The chapter then goes on to look at reverse engineering and encryption research. These articles outline the legalities of circumventing copyright protection to analyze its flaws among other things. There are allowances for good faith testing and research in some areas, although they are limited. The end of the document gives a history, notes and definitions of subjects that are part of the act. It also cites relevant cases that have challenged the DMCA, its stipulations and its legalities.
This is the section of the DMCA that many hardware manufacturers are using to create software that is copyright protected and is the only software that the hardware can be used with. This is the law that allows small monopolies on the market to exist until something new is invented or the monopoly is challenged by law. This section of the DMCA allows for copyright protected material to be impermeable to circumvention. This is an important part of the DMCA and is one that draws a lot of attention both in and out of the legal system. It has, in some ways, created a new business model and a new way for companies to enter another market by exploiting the copyright protection and anti-circumvention clauses. It allows companies like The Chamberlain Group to try and block the market and control it by claiming copyright infringement. It also allows hardware companies to enter the software market because they create hardware that can only be used on their copyright protected software platforms. Although a lot of this has not held up in court, when challenged, it has become a popular way of doing business and entering into a new market. This part of the DMCA is the backbone of my paper. I will analyze its words to show how it allows for companies to attempt to monopolize markets and control aftermarkets. I will also suggess that it needs to be ammended because although the courts have limited the attempts of some companies to control their market and aftermarkets, the DMCA is still open to exploitation because the court rulings do not create any legal precedents that go against the DMCA itself.