Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 107 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 1201 (§ 103 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) · 17 U.S.C. § 1203 (§ 103 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer · Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the challenged circumvention device must indeed circumvent something.... Because Lexmark has not directed any of its security efforts, through its authentication sequence or otherwise, to ensuring that its copyrighted work (the Printer Engine Program) cannot be read and copied, it cannot lay claim to having put in place a “technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the copyright statute].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Sections 1201(f)(2) and (3) of the DMCA are not broad exceptions that can be employed to excuse any behavior that makes some device `interoperable' with some other device.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.