concurring.
I agree with the Court’s opinion as far as it goes; but, on the record now before us, I would go further in limiting the scope of the remand. As the Court explains, the Toner Loading Program is not copyrightable because of the merger and scenes a faire doctrines, and even if it were copyrightable SCO’s use of the program in this case appears to fall under the fair use exception. Its purpose, though commercial in nature, was only to sell cartridges that could be used by Lexmark printers rather than to profit by infringing any Lexmark copyright. The fact that the Toner Loading Program is not copyrightable defeats both Lexmark’s direct claim to copyright infringement and its DMCA claim based on the Toner Loading Program (because the DMCA only prevents the circumvention of measures that protect copyright-protected works). And I agree that Lexmark’s DMCA claim based on the clearly copyright-protected Printer Engine Program fails because the authentication sequence does not, and is not intended to, “effectively control[ ] access” to the Printer Engine Program.
I write separately to emphasize that our holding should not be limited to the narrow facts surrounding either the Toner Loading Program or the Printer Engine Program. We should make clear that in the future companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create monopolies of manufactured goods for themselves just by tweaking the facts of this case: by, for example, creating a Toner Loading Program that is more complex and “creative” than the one here, or by cutting off other access to the Printer Engine Program. The crucial point is that the DMCA forbids anyone *552from trafficking in any technology that “is primarily designed or - produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [protected] work.” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(2)(A) (emphasis added). The key question is the. “purpose” of the circumvention technology. The microchip in SCO’s toner cartridges is intended not to reap any benefit from the Toner Loading Pro^am — SCO’s microchip is not designed to measure toner levels — but only for the purpose of making SCO’s competing toner cartridges work with printers manufactured by Lexmark.
By contrast, Lexmark would have us read this statute in such a way that any time a manufacturer intentionally circumvents any technological measure and accesses a protected work it necessarily violates the statute regardless of its “purpose.” Such a reading would ignore the precise language — “for the purpose of’ — as well as the main point of the DMCA — to prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, mus:.c, and computer programs. If we were to adopt Lexmark’s reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes. Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entile market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Confess did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures “for the purpose” of pirating works protected by the copyright statute. Unless a plaintiff can show that a defendant circumvented protective measures for such a purpose, its claim should not be allowed to go' forward. . If Lexmark wishes to utilize DMCA protections for (allegedly) copyrightable works, it should not use such works to prevent competing cartridges from working with its printer.
Reading the DMCA in pari materia with the rest of the copyright code supports this interpretation. The DMCA should be used as part of. the copyright code as it applies to computer software codes and other digital media. To this extent, the specific “purpose” language of the DMCA modifies the more abstract language of the previous copyright law. As the Court explains, the fair use exception in copyright law explicitly looks to the purpose of the one making the copy in determining whether or not such copying violates the statute, and the DMCA itself contains a reverse engineering exception that also demonstrates Congress’s aim merely to prevent piracy. I agree with the Court that both exceptions apply to SCC’s actions in this case. But we should be wary of shifting the burden to a rival manufacturer to demonstrate that its conduct falls under such an exception in cases where there is no indication that it has any intention of pirating a protected work. See, e.g., Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture 187 (2004) (noting the danger that- “in America fair use simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend your right to create”). A monopolist could enforce its will against a smáller rival simply because the potential cost of extended litigation and discovery where the burden of proof shifts to the defendant is itself a deterrent to innovation and competition. Misreading the statute to shift the burden in this way could allow powerful manufacturers in practice to create monopolies where they are not in principle supported by law. Instead, a better reading- of the statute is that it requires plaintiffs as part of their burden of pleading and persuasion to show a purpose to pirate on the part of defendants. Only then need the defendants invoke the *553statutory exceptions, such as the reverse engineering exception. In this case, even if the Toner Loading Program were protected by copyright, and even if the access to the Printer Engine Program were “effectively” controlled, there has been no showing that SCC circumvented the authentication sequence for the purpose of accessing these programs. Indeed, the proof so far shows that SCC had no interest in those programs other than ensuring that their own cartridges would work with Lexmark’s printers.
Finally, this reading of the DMCA is also supported by the provision in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to regulate copyright. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate copyright in order to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 8. Congress gives authors and programmers exclusive rights to their expressive works (for a limited time) so that they will have an incentive to create works that promote progress. Lexmark’s reading of the extent of these rights, however, would clearly stifle rather than promote progress. It would allow authors exclusive control over not only their own expression, but also over whatever functional use they can make of that expression in manufactured goods. Giving authors monopolies over manufactured goods as well as over their creative expressions will clearly not “promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts,” but rather would stifle progress by stamping out competition from manufacturers who may be able to design better or less expensive replacement parts like toner cartridges.
For these additional reasons, I concur in the Court’s opinion reversing the judgment of the district court. On remand the first question should be whether Lexmark can show the requisite “primary purpose” to pirate a copyrighted work rather than to ensure that their own cartridges work with Lexmark’s printer. If not, its case against SCC should be dismissed.