Lexmark Wins Injunction in Toner Cartridge Suit 557
goingincirclez writes "Cnet reports that Lexmark has won an injunction against Static Control Components, Inc., which effectively prohibits the manufacture of recycled / third party toner cartidges. Slashdot covered the initial filing of the suit. SCC also has a rebuttal site that definitely warrants checking out. I would like to think that other printer manufacturers won't follow suit, but I'm not that naive. Better start your trust fund for ink cartridges."
Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I don't think that, even if they ultimately win this case all the way up the line, that this is a winning business strategy. I certainly am not going to buy a printer that is tied exclusively to the manufacturer.
This can't be good publicity for Lexmark; every story is explaining that the manufacturer's supplies are more expensive. That's got to have consumers thinking about buying from HP, or Epson, or whomever.
I think this is a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot, and then sueing for the privilege of doing so again.
Wish HP would create a universal cartridge (Score:5, Interesting)
Would keep inc prices low, hence make their products enticing... and they can keep whatever patents they want to themselves.
A cartridge should just hold ink.
You're missing the point (Score:0, Interesting)
_They_ did not give permission for anyone else to manufacture a product which will work with their printers. That would mean licensing which is not taking place.
If you don't like a businesses policies, don't buy from them. Don't bitch at them when they're trying to protect something _they_ developed.
I'll never buy another lexmark printer (Score:5, Interesting)
It came with all toner cartridges only 25% filled. This was not mentioned anywhere on the box or on the web site where I ordered.
The printer has actually functioned maybe half of the time that we've owned it. Two on-site service calls later, and we're still having problems:
In contrast, our HP laserjet has NEVER missed a beat. Look I know this is not a representative sample or anything, but there are clearly DESIGN flaws with this printer and it should not be on the market. Even after multiple service calls it does not work.
Re:You're missing the point (Score:2, Interesting)
America is a strange country...
Lexmark Shooting Itself In the Foot, Really... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's fine, but the market will have the last word -- for example, I will not buy a Lexmark printer. It won't be because of a political statement of any kind but rather one based on practicality -- they have increased their total cost of ownership to the point where it doesn't make sense for me to go and purchase their gear.
If ongoing consumables gets to be unreasonable, due to a legally mandated monopoly, people will move away from existing installations as well.
Hurray! This is great! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? The DMCA is an unjust law, and as someone wiser than I once said, the best way to get an unjust law struck down is to vigorously enforce it.
Joe and Jane Sixpack don't care about some Russian company's software or some professors speach. They probably aren't even aware of them. But if they can't get cheap ink cartriges anymore
HP says it won't follow suit (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked at SCC (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is going to get pathetic (Score:4, Interesting)
*Devil's Advocate Mode*
On the flip side, there's incentive for printer manufacturers to keep developing new and interesting printers at lower and lower prices. That may not sound all that interesting to you, but I think it's damn cool that I recently bought a laser printer for only $300. I thought those things would forever stay in the > $1000 range.
As for your comment about them charging whatever they want, that's not entirely true. If they get crazy, people will pay attention to the cost of ink when they go to buy the printer. I can tell you that I've personally done that. I don't own an ink-jet anymore because I think the cost of a small container of ink is ridiculous. If cheap-ink alternatives aren't available, then the manufacturer has done a pretty good job of branding themselves as expensive. Ever look at a row of printer ink and see the sea of $30 price tags?
I agree with you that it sucks in one way, but it can potentially suck the other way as well. Seems like we either get cheap printers OR we get cheap ink. I've yet to see both.
Lots of legal anti-precedent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, wasn't there a case where Polaroid tried to keep (Kodak? or was it the other way around) from making film for their cameras? (and then in the Mainframe arena there was some lawsuit between IBM and Amdahl where IBM was trying to keep Amdahl's tape units out of IBM's mainframes - IBM lost as I recall). These are all pretty fuzzy rememberances, perhaps someone who knows these cases could comment?
Anyway, something seems pretty screwy here, it seems like there is a lot of precedent out there that is totally opposite of this ruling.
Incompetence or bribery? (Score:3, Interesting)
Alternately, this was an honest decision made by a judge so technologically illiterate that he can't understand the issues and came to his decision by counting the lawyers at the defendants and plaintiff's tables.
IIRC, there are court precedents that say that if a company is a franchise vendor, selling franchises does NOT mean you can force the franchisees to buy only from the franchise vendors, and I think there are other examples of situations similar to that one where the courts turned thumbs down on the kind of restraint of trade Lexmark is trying to pull using the DMCA.
The Worst Kind of Capitalistic Practice (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a bait and switch. They lure the customer in with a low-priced, high-powered printer and then snag him on the very expensive replacement cartridges.
Though they have a monopoly, it's not a trust situation because Lexmark isn't the only company that sells printers. But as far as I understand, all printer manufacturers follow this policy.
Are there any that don't? Are there any printer manufacturers that sell their printers and inks at market costs? Are there any who don't actively discourage the use of cheap recycled/replacement ink catridges?
Re:simple solution.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of the problem with what we call the "free market" today is that consumers are not following the "free market" model, and the parent post is an excellent example of this. Most people will buy the cheapest item or the one with the most brand-recognition or so-forth, instead of knowing what the pros and cons of each choice are. They're passive in their market knowledge and thus it's easy to sway them with marketing and advertizing.
Now, there's nothing stopping a truly informed consumer as in the grandparent post (looking at the 3rd party resellers for a given model) from being empowered as a consumer as per the free market model (*). And more power to those that actually do this, as opposed to making a purchasing decision blindly.
(*) Of course, EULAs that prevent product benchmarks and comparisons and other tactics can get in the way, but for the most part, the information is out there, you just need to find it.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
unpopular (Score:2, Interesting)
Dell's supposedly bringing it's own printer to market, that should keep the other pretty honest.
If anything, SCC's argument doesn't go far enough. (Score:3, Interesting)
This behavior can be applied to ANY industry in which there are consumables:
- printers needing special paper containing "code" in the form of an IR- or UV-readable barcode,
- electric shavers containing an embedded chip in the cutter heads that tells the unit the cutter was made by the same manufacturer,
- chips in ANY recordable-mdeia form factor that validates the manufacturer,
- chips in ANY auto part that perform manufacturer validation,
- chips in common BATTERIES that force you to use batteries branded by a certain manufacturer or their partners,
- chips in, say, headphones that require that you use them with stereo equipment made by the same manufacturer,
and on and on. The list is countless. Just look around your room, office, or house and ask yourself if there is ANYTHING there that occasionally requires replacement parts. ANYTHING. Anything at all.
THIS is just how bad the DMCA has become. This is how much it can and is being abused. It's got to go.
DMCA protection for a toner cartridge? (Score:2, Interesting)
If I need to replace my inkjet cartridges, I can buy a whole new printer for near the cost--which has been tempting several times. I tried using refill kits, but don't quite have the knack yet. I got the color cartridge to work once, but I think I let it sit near empty too long--my fault.
If companies spent the money on R&D to develop new products and more efficient means of manufacturing the current ones instead of litigation, technology would advance faster and the consumers would benefit.
The only losers in that situation would be the out-of-work IP lawyers. And I don't see that as a problem.
If the printer manufacturers are going to void warranties and take such steps to prevent the use of third party consumables, then they need to bring the price of those consumables down a bit.
GM can't void your warranty for using a Fram oil filter or require an OEM part unless they provide it free of charge; why should printer manufacturers be allowed to block out alternative consumable sources?
I'm not saying cartridges should be free; I am saying that the consumer should be free to choose. Next step is requiring the use of branded paper in the printers.