A Blast from the Past (Lexmark prebate program in the news).

I wrote about Lexmark's "Prebate Return Program" way back in 2008, when I was the IT director at a private school. At the time, what I considered remarkable about the program was the fact that the court had ruled that the user of one of their "prebate program" printer cartridges was bound by law to the agreement printed on the package (what is known in the software world as a "click-wrap" agreement*). What made this notable to me was the fact that this was the first time I was aware of a court ruling that the agreement printed on the packaging of a physical product (as opposed to just software) is binding to the consumer, by the act of the consumer opening the packaging. Legally, users of these cartridges were agreeing, just by opening the box, to return the cartridge to Lexmark, as opposed to selling them to recyclers (or anyone else), and Lexmark, in return, priced these cartridges significantly less than cartridges that did not have this restrictive agreement. I felt that this threatened the first sale doctrine, though I didn't opine about it greatly at the time.

This program and Lexmark's surrounding business practices are in the courts again. In 2002, Lexmark sued a company who reverse-engineered the computer chip which determined whether a replacement cartridge was "genuine" or not, when said cartridge is inserted into a Lexmark Printer. Lexmark alleged that this company, Static Control Components, was violating the "no circumvention" clause of the DMCA. The logic was that since the chip somehow protects access to Lexmark's intellectual property, and a reverse-engineered chip mimics the authentication sequence used by Lexmark chips, and tricks the printer into accepting an aftermarket cartridge, it was circumventing Lexmark's intellectual property scheme. Or it may be simply because Lexmark's authentication scheme was patented, or both. If it was the former, I am not sure what intellectual property this embedded authentication chip scheme protected in the first place, unless they were referring to the automatic copyright on Lexmark's quarterly earnings statement (ha ha). Not only did Lexmark sue Static Control Components, but they also waged an agressive letter-writing campaign to companies who refilled printer cartridges (SCC's potential customers, who would potentially buy and embed SCC's chips on the cartridges they refilled, so that the refilled cartridges would work when a customer installed them into a Lexmark printer). These letters from Lexmark stated that Lexmark believed that SCC was violating copyright law.

The Supreme Court just ruled that Lexmark does have to stand trial over the false advertising that was allegedly committed by Lexmark when they sent out all those letters calling SCC lawbreakers, thereby damaging SCC's reputation.

Lexmark, meet chickens, chickens, meet roost (oh, you have already met). But not for the reason that had troubled (and continues to trouble) me in 2008.

*Of course, these days, in the software world, an end user license agreement is much more likely to be only a "click through" agreement than a click-wrap agreement, since there is no packaging on apps that simply download.

Disclaimer

Here is the disclaimer that I promised in my previous post.:

My disclaimer:

I am not writing this blog in order to bless the world with my knowledge or anything silly like that (though some valuable information may or may not be included in my posts),  but mostly, I want to foster healthy, informative discussions on topics that effect my life and the lives of those around me. I plan to facilitate this by expressing my own opinions. I welcome, even encourage other view points (as long as the discussion can remain civil) in comments to my blog entries. I hope to gain other perspectives as I go (not just be exposed to them, but to learn and grow, and include some of them into my own).

While I am at it, any opinions expressed in this blog are not necessarily the opinion(s) of any employer of mine, past or present.

Besides my B.S. in Information Technology from WGU Texas, and various IT industry certifications, I have zero formal credentials that would make me an expert on many of the topics about which I write. I am not an economist, an HR professional, or scientist of any type, nor am I a mathematician. I am not a lawyer, and I am not offering legal advice. I am not a doctor, and I am not offering medical advice. I am not a mental health care professional, and I am not offering personal counseling.

I reserve the right to remove comments that are offensive, or which take more away from the conversation than they add (assuming the Blogger comment system lets me). This is my blog; if you want to run the show, get your own blog (I understand they are free). If I am too busy making a living to support my family, I may not have the resources to cull the millions and millions of comments, so read them at your own risk.

Change in focus -Widening of future topics.

Up to now, my blog posts (prolific as they are) have been focused on technology purely in a professional sense, including news and developments. But I have not written much based solely on my experiences or opinions.
But now, I have decided to make an effort to put forth more of my own experiences and opinions. My reasoning is that people can get news anywhere, but experience is harder to come by, so maybe this will make for better blog entries.
I may stray into areas that have less to do with technology and more to do with other aspects of my life. Since technology is pervasive, though, I will always stay in this neighborhood, only maybe it will be more interesting. From what I understand of how Google ranks blogs for authority, the variations in topics should ensure my continued lack of relevancy, even if the change manages to bring a reader or two my way (yes, that is self-deprecating humor).
I will likely ask as many questions as I attempt to answer.
Some areas that I anticipate possibly exploring:

• Technology and its effects on unexpected aspects of life.
• How data mining changed x
• How GPS changed x
• How additive manufacturing is changing x
• How mobile technology changed or is changing x
• Career development in today's world.
• How IT itself has changed in the past x years.
• How business has changed in the past x years.
• They don't make 'em like they used to - business, competition, race to the bottom.
• Grow or die--This is why we can't have (the same) nice things forever.
• MBA's, degree or curse upon the earth?
• Pendulums - don't they swing the other way at some point? (America in decline?)
• America's role in the global economy of the future
• Innovation - the difference between Crisis and Opportunity.
• The future of America
• The future of the developed world
• Economic growth and sustainability (with and without the environmental overtones)

As I will cover in an upcoming disclaimer, my expectations are that I will hopefully foster thoughtful discussion. I hope whatever comment management scheme Blogger.com has in place will allow me to keep a handle on the state of reader comments. The last thing I want is to re-create the atmosphere of the old YouTube comments section (flame city).