4 ms·
I worked at Lexmark shortly after they spun off from IBM. As an intern in the early 90s I was tasked with researching crypto methods of securing their printer c
by ballenf 10y ago
I worked at Lexmark shortly after they spun off from IBM. As an intern in the early 90s I was tasked with researching crypto methods of securing their printer cartridges. Whoever bought or was running Lexmark from day one had these goals in mind as a key part of the value-add in buying IBM's old typewriter division.
My answer, at the time, was 'no' there is no foolproof way of using crypto because the keys would have to be stored in the chip that the refiller has access to. I'm sure there were actual engineers working on the same task, who I assume gave the same answer since they moved on to legal instead of technological means.
Even at the time, I was disheartened by the leadership's attitude and goals. Kind of amazing that for 20+ years they haven't abandoned this approach.
- javajosh 10y agoI wonder if the founder of Lexmark started the company with the big idea, "Hey, let's apply the razor/blade business model to printers!" If so, then "abandoning the approach" is impossible, and the approach will only be abandoned with company failure. And you know, I have to say it: it's unethical, immoral, but it's not illegal to have a nefarious business plan, and I'm glad. To me, the larger issue is that the justice system has itself become a weapon to punish competitors, particularly through the use of IP claims. Punishment occurs long before conviction, when the cost of defending yourself can mean a significant and ongoing expense. A justice system that ignores reality, including economic reality, cannot be just.