Losers Of Garage Door DMCA Case Try To Use Legaleze To Lock Up Your Garage Door Openers Anyway

from the sneaky-bastards dept

It's been over five years since garage door opener company Chamberlain lost its bizarre DMCA case, which tried to argue that anyone making competing replacement garage door openers was violating the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA. If you believed Chamberlain, then it would mean that the DMCA could effectively be used to block out any competition in replacement parts just by using a bit of encryption. The court's ruling was a bit convoluted, basically saying that this simply couldn't be what Congress intended with the DMCA, even if it was sorta what the language of the law actually said. This was a victory, in that it did limit the DMCA against a ridiculous situation, but it was unfortunate in that the ruling didn't address what the law actually said. To get around this, the court did a few different things, including noting that what Skylink did with its competing garage door openers didn't really involve "unauthorized access," which is key to the anti-circumvention clause. As the courts recognized, how could Chamberlain tell homeowners that they couldn't authorize the opening of their own garage door?

Fast forward five years, and most tech/copryight folks haven't thought too much about garage door openers and their relation to the DMCA... until Ars Technica's Nate Anderson moved into a new house, and noticed his garage door opener manual (from Chamberlain, of course). The manual was from 2006... well after Chamberlian had lost its case. And yet... the manual contained clear DMCA-style anti-circumvention language, stating:

NOTICE: If this Security+ garage door opener is operated with a non-rolling code transmitter, the technical measure in the receiver of the garage door opener, which provides security against code-theft devices, will be circumvented. The owner of the copyright in the garage door opener does not authorize the purchaser or supplier of the non-rolling code transmitter to circumvent that technical measure.

What's quite clear is that Chamberlain is trying to legaleze its way around the court rulings against it, by stating in the manual that you are not authorized to get around its little bit of technical trickery. Basically, it sounds like Chamberlain's lawyers saw the loophole in the judges twisted reasoning to get around what the DMCA does state, and have jumped gleefully through that loophole. Of course, the lawyers Anderson questioned doubt that this would hold up in court, but the real question is whether or not this would ever go back to court. Chamberlain may just be hoping that enough people are scared off by the questionable legal language that it doesn't need to file lawsuits, and competing product makers probably don't find it worthwhile to file their own lawsuit either. But, in the meantime, we get to see yet another remnant of what the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause has created.

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, authorization, copyright, dmca, garage door openers
Companies: chamberlain