When you pass a law that is illogical it becomes difficult to enforce because there is very little, if any, legal infrastructure to do so. By that I mean well thought out case law or at least logical arguments to backup the intent of the law.
So, when such a law is passed, and judges and juries are required to interpret disputes between parties, what results is usually tortured logic, law, and frequently: injustice, or as one person put it, a legally correct conclusion but at the same time patently absurd and lacking in any common sense.
This should not be a surprise. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future. It is the logical result of an illogical law.
Conversely, you can have judges who will come to illogical conclusions, having realized the law itself is illogical, and therefore try to create a new law, rather than interpret it, or better yet, invalidate it.
But it is instructive to dissect such instances so that we can learn from them and reduce their occurrences.
One of the most egregious examples of such illogical laws is the so called "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA). It has resulted in rulings showing both of the above problems.
In Lexmark v. Static Control Components, Inc., laser printer manufacturer Lexmark sought injunctive relief from Static Control Components (SCC) alleging irreparable damage and loss of revenue due to copyright infringement under, inter alia, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and yes, the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.
As an interesting side light, it is instructive to note that in the Lexmark complaint they reveal their business model is based on selling relatively low priced lasers (but not as low as their competition) but high priced toner cartridges and other supplies for their printers.
One line of Lexmark toner cartridges includes an embedded micro-chip with copyrighted code. The complaint notes the code is used by the printer to determine toner level and is read by the printer's copyrighted programming.
And here is the where the DMCA comes in, the code includes an "authentication sequence, to prevent unauthorized access to its Toner Loading Program and Printer Engine Programs." If the authentication does not occur, access to the cartridge is denied and the printer will not print. It should be noted that Lexmark produces another line of cartridges that does not require this authentication (at a higher price) and, in fact, third-party manufacturers are free to legally produce their own replacements for this non-authentication line as no micro-chips are included nor required.
Now comes SCC, a manufacturer of third-party toner cartridges, including a line designed to circumvent the authentication sequence of Lexmark's chip by including their own chip that mimics the other.
The judge, following the relevant laws, ruled in favor of Lexmark. The case is currently under appeal. See the relevant documents here.
I'm out of time for today. Hopefully, on Monday I will have the time to go through a case in which a judge sought to ignore the law.
Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!
