http://tags.library.upenn.edu/tag/copyright+anti-circumvention_infringement PennTags Feed http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/11977 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/11977 This case is the appeal of the suit that The Chamberlain Group, INC. brought against Skylink Technologies, INC over garage door remote controls. Chamberlain claims that Skylink Technologies violated the DMCA because they manufactured a remote that can open garaged doors made by Chamberlain that use a &ldquo;rolling-code&rdquo; technology. Chamberlain filed suit against Skylink for both copyright and patent infringement, stating that the Skylink device is a &ldquo;circumvention device&rdquo; that goes around a code and thus violates the Circumvention of Copyright Protected System section of the DMCA. Chamberlain argues that the DMCA states: &ldquo;No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.&rdquo; The rolling code feature in the Chamberlain garage door openers is a computer program that changes the code that allows a person to open the garage door. The Skylink device does not use this code; rather it circumvents it and allows the door to be opened. This rolling code is copyrighted and Chamberlain asserts that the Skylink garage door opener circumvents this code, and therefore violates the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA. Skylink&rsquo;s model 39 garage door opener simulates the rolling code used in Chamberlain&rsquo;s models. However, the court did not agree with Chamberlain and ruled in favor of Skylink. The court decided that Chamberlain could not prove that Skylink developed the model 39 in order to circumvent the rolling code technology and that the model has little commercial value outside of this purpose. The model 39 can work with other garage door units, not only Chamberlains garage doors with rolling code security. The court concludes that the DMCA does not provide new property rights. The court claims that Chamberlain did not show how access provided by the model 39 transmitter constitutes infringement.<br /> This case deals with aftermarkets and monopolies. Universal remote controls for garage doors are often purchased as replacements or backups to the devices included with the garage door on initial purchase. The aftermarket for these devices then becomes a lucrative market for those who provide replacement garage door openers. Skylink makes universal remotes that work with many different brands and models of garage doors. Chamberlain, a major garage door manufacturer sells replacement remotes for its products. However, Skylink cuts into Chamberlain&rsquo;s aftermarket profits with its universal remotes. The DMCA protects circumvention of any copyrighted work, such as the rolling code in Chamberlain&rsquo;s claim. However, this case is more than just a copyright infringement case, because it has larger significance in the marketplace. If Chamberlain had been able to win their case and make the model 39 illegal because of DMCA infringement, it would then give them more control of the aftermarket by taking away the competition of universal remotes. This case is an example of how companies are turning to copyright and the DMCA in order to give themselves control of a market. Copyright is being used to help give companies a monopoly in the area of the market that they want to control. I will use this case as an example of a company trying to exploit the DMCA in order to control a market.&nbsp; It shows how copyright law is exploited by a manufacturer and then put into place by the courts.&nbsp; The major point is that the courts do not find anything wrong in the DMCA, just a lack support by the plaintiff.&nbsp; This shows that the DMCA is still open for exploitation, and this trend will continue.<br /><br />