Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

Chamberlain’s operating software using non-rolling code transmitters. 889 The administrative lawjudge ruled that this fact was insufficient to avoid res judicata, because the fact could have beenasserted before the district court, since the administrative ruling on the request for temporaryrelief issued before the district court acted. 890 In addition, the administrative law judge ruled thatChamberlain’s new owners’ manuals “impose no enforceable restrictions on consumers even ifthey do ‘warn’ them that non-rolling code transmitters are ‘unauthorized.’ There are no negativeconsequences for a consumer who ignores the statement in Chamberlain’s new manuals.” 891Accordingly, the administrative law judge determined that the investigation should be terminatedin its entirety and certified that determination to the Commission. 892(iv) Storage Technology Corporation v. CustomHardware Engineering & ConsultingIn this case, the plaintiff Storage Technology Corporation (“StorageTek”) sold systemsfor storing and retrieving very large amounts of computer data. StorageTek also serviced itscustomers’ installations by means of diagnostic software, called the “Maintenance Code,” that itused to identify malfunctions and problems in its customers’ storage systems. In order to protectits service market, StorageTek restricted access to the Maintenance Code with a proprietaryalgorithm called GetKey. 893When activated, the Maintenance Code ran a series of diagnostic tests and providedinformation concerning the nature of existing or potential problems. It was programmed to beset at different levels between 0 and 9. At the 0 level (the usual setting), the Maintenance Codewas disabled. Above 0 the Maintenance Code activated specific diagnostic functions at differentlevels. To enable the Maintenance Code for a particular system, a technician was required tocontact StorageTek’s technical support staff, provide the serial number of the equipment beingserviced and identify the desired level of the Maintenance Code. The technician would then begiven a GetKey password specific to the request that the technician was required to enter in orderto reset the maintenance level. During the process of accessing the Maintenance Code andchanging the level, a complete copy of the code was made in the RAM memory of the system. 894The defendants competed with StorageTek for servicing StorageTek systems. Theyfigured out how to circumvent the GetKey algorithm to gain access to the Maintenance Code andto reset its maintenance level in order to run diagnostics that would generate information needed889890891892893894Id. at 1907-08.Id. at 1909-10.Id. at 1910.Id.Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12391 (D.Mass. July 2, 2004) at *3-4.Id. at *7-8.- 199 -