Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

European Parliament: No More Ink-Cartridge Chips 59

Posted by timothy from the but-they-are-so-handy dept.
Leon Zandman writes "Electric News reports that the European Parliament voted unanimously on Wednesday in favour of a new EU "electroscrap" recycling law, which comes into effect in 2006 and includes a ruling directing manufacturers of printers to no longer incorporate chips into their own-brand ink refill cartridges. These chips prevent cartridges produced by other manufacturers from being used in many printers. In addition, proponents of the measure say the chips prevent them from being refilled -- a feature on many cartridges made by printer manufacturers. Seems that prices of printer cartridges are going to drop. Let's hope the prices of the printers themselves will not skyrocket..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

European Parliament: No More Ink-Cartridge Chips More

European Parliament: No More Ink-Cartridge Chips

Comments Filter:

  • Bah, who cares... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by adamjaskie ( 310474 )
    if the printers are more expensive? Id rather spend $500 on a printer, and $10 on an ink cartridge every month than $50 on a printer and $40 on an ink cartridge every month. Heck, if colour LASER printers were more affordable, I'd buy one! Inkjets arent worth it unless your printing photos. Even then, a dye-sub is better.
    • I've found that B&W lasers provide almost all I need. There are really very few times when I need to print any color pictures from home; if I do, I keep a fairly cheap old Lexmark inkjet around. My HP Laserjet IIP has great Linux compatability, prints fairly quickly (faster than almost any inkjet, although nowhere near as fast as a modern laser) and the toner lasts forever and a day. I think I've put about 4 reams through that thing on the current toner cartridge, and it is still chugging along without any lightening problems.

      The only downside is that new toner from HP costs about $100 a pop (although refilling is only ~$35, I switch off refilling and new cartridges, to prevent too much accumulated gunk). Still, though, it is an average of $135 every two years, giving you a cost-per-month of about $5. I would strongly suggest checking out Ebay (try to find someone near you where you can drive over and pick it up, as shipping's painful on big, heavy laser units).

    • I think your prices might be a bit off. I've seen times when it was cheaper to buy a new printer, take the ink out of it, and throw/give the printer away as a gift then get new ink. It's just like Microsofts stratigy, and as such, is starting to fail. Sell the investment at a loss, charge too much for ink/games/what not. I wonder how long till we start running Linux on our DeskJets? Do you still get the 'LTP1 On Fire', or is it replaced with 'Ayeeeeeeee!'?

  • Skyrocket? Yup... (Score:4, Informative)

    by bsmoor01 ( 150458 ) <seth.beere@org> on Thursday December 19, 2002 @05:45PM (#4926397)
    The current business model is "Sell the printer at a loss, clean up on supplies."

    Since the printer companies won't be able to rely on this anymore, they will have to jack up prices just to make a profit.

    This is something I don't think many (non-techie) consumers realize. Many complain about high ink prices, but don't realize the manufacturer probably sold the printer at a loss.

    • Re:Skyrocket? Yup... (Score:4, Informative)

      by hawkbug ( 94280 ) <psx.fimble@com> on Thursday December 19, 2002 @05:53PM (#4926446) Homepage
      Oh poor baby HP - can't monopolize the ink business anymore. Frankly, I think this is the greatest thing that could have happened to the printer biz - because like people are saying, they'd rather drop a few hundred on a printer and not have to spend a bloody fortune on ink all the time. My damn ink dries up before I can even use it, and my printer takes the 2 cartdriges, so they screw me over every time I need to print something. Trust me, ink competition in this market is a good thing. This would be like if you could buy a car for $100 and every time you needed gas, it cost you $500 and you could only buy gas from one company. It's just not right.

      • Re:Skyrocket? Yup... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by perljon ( 530156 )
        You had the choice to buy a more expensive printer with cheaper/generic capable cartridges. But you didn't. Let the market choose (like you did when you bought the thing). Why should a few politicians outvoice the masses who have chosen to buy cheap printers with expensive cartridges?
        • Choice, really? The average consumer (this is me when it comes to printers) has no clue what kind of refills are available for a printer when they get it. I shopped around for a good printer with good quality printing for a good price. Nowhere at Best Buy did it mention how much ink would cost me at the time. The printer came with ink, so I was fine until it ran out... then I realized what a crappy printer I had based on price and the quality of the printer. The thing prints lines through images, and smears ink across other images. I have calibrated the damn thing, and it still prints horribly. I am about to throw it in the trash and do some more research on printers to get something affordable in the long run. Also, I'm not the kind of person who favors laws - I agree, I'd rather let the market sort it all out. Yet, I haven't seen Cannon, Epson, or anyone else charging a lot less for ink for the average printer. It's like all the printing companies are in it together because they know that's their bread and butter - ripping off the consumer when it comes time to refill their ink. I'd love it if someone could show me a good, solid printer that cost less than $10 to refill the ink in it. I mean, it's just ink people - it's nothing fancy.
          • Your were smart enough to know the printer you bought was cheaper than the others. You HAD to know that they use expendable ink cartridges. I'm sure the same store you bought the printer at also sells the ink cartridges. Are you to lazy to walk over to the next isle and find out what the cartridge cost? My god, are you so helpless? How wipes your ass after you shit in the morning.
        • You had the choice to buy a more expensive printer with cheaper/generic capable cartridges. But you didn't.

          Choice, huh? Yeah right.

          Almost every new PC these days comes with a bundled printer, and it's almost always made by one of three or four companies. You want to buy a printer seperately? Again, three or four options (assuming you want half-decent output... but why would you buy a printer if you weren't interested in the output).

          In short, the cartel operated by the printer manufacturers is almost (but not quite) as tight as those in the operating system or semiconductor businesses. It's definitely time to stop.

          Why should a few politicians outvoice the masses who have chosen to buy cheap printers with expensive cartridges?

          Obvious answer: Because the masses are stupid and need guidance. That's the whole point of politicians. (what? yours don't do this too??)

          Longer answer: The politicians are actually doing this for environmental reasons more than to change the printer industry. A lot of people don't realise just how dire the situation has got in regard to trash - the culture of disposable goods really does need to end, because some places (eg southern England) have literally less than five years before there is no more land-fill space left. And we've already started building on top of old waste dumps too. The situation is untenable, even in the short term, and the politicians know it.
          • Dell, Compaq, Gateway, Sony, IBM, Micro Center, Computer Success, The Computer Leppracahn, Best Buy, Wal Mart, Meijer. They all sell computers. You have choice. If you insist the printer is free, then you still have a choice to use up the 'free' ink and throw the printer away. And then buy a new one with cheaper cartridges. You have choice.

            Let's assume the trash issue is real. I would support asking printer manufacturers to refill their cartridges and resell them, or even melt the plastic and re-use the chips. But this is more about altering a business model than it is recycling.

            Yes American politicians try to do stupid shit like this. We call them Democrats. I don't vote for them.
            • The problem is that there is no company with a 'cheap ink, expensive printer' business model, unless you're looking for Dot-matrix.

              It is questionable if forcing the companies to change this business model would be legal, ethical, etc.. However, many consumers would be very happy with this change.

              --
              Eric Windisch

              • The problem is that there is no company with a 'cheap ink, expensive printer' business model, unless you're looking for Dot-matrix.

                Last time I checked (August 2002), Epson and Canon have relatively cheap ink because they don't put the inkjet mechanism in the same package as the ink itself. Epson builds the jets into the printer. Canon does the sensible thing and puts the ink and jets on separate replaceable cartridges; for details, see my other comment [slashdot.org].

        • You had the choice to buy a more expensive printer with cheaper/generic capable cartridges

          Er, no I didn't. Which line of printers were you thinking of? Or were you making facts up to suit your philosophy?

          Why should a few politicians outvoice the masses

          They're not outvoicing me. I support it, and the masses, or at least the masses that I know, agree.
          • If you actually supported it, then you wouldn't have bought the printer with the chips in it. Your vote of the dollar (mark, frank whatever) is much more powerful than any other vote. And enough Europeans have voted for this business model with their wallet, that these companies keep operating. How do I know this? If people didn't buy into this business model, the companies would be a) out of business b) change their business model.
            • Your vote of the dollar (mark, frank whatever) is much more powerful than any other vote

              Clearly not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. The "votes" by cash have been overruled.
            • How many consumers know which printers have chips in the cartridge, at least until they have bought the printer and discover problems with refilling?
            • >> If you actually supported it, then you wouldn't have bought the printer with the chips in it.

              Do most people realize this neat little trick forced on us by the printer makers when they buy the damn things? Probably not, just as most people don't read the licensing agreements of their software, (or their car owner's manual, for that matter).

              IMHO, it's exactly this sort of ignorance that the industry relies on to do all sorts of things that we neither need nor want...backdoor access to your computer, mining of personal data etc.

              >> Your vote of the dollar (mark, frank whatever)

              That would be the "Euro" now, with one or two notable exceptions.
              • It will be the dollar soon enough. Europeans are so dumb they are so easily tricked by corporations. Just wait until American enginuity hits you. Oh wait, it did. It's called World War II and the Cold War. We should have just raised our American flag and skipped the whole politeness of acting like you're in control.
          • Yeah they are called laser printers, an older HP LaserJet, like a III will probably last forever, has anyone else noticed that commercial stuff build by HP a while ago is of much heavier design than almost anything they put out today. The cartriges aren't marked up quite as much, and carbon is cheap, They face some competition because there are lots of companies that sell "recycled" cartriges for them.
            Even a newer laser will have expensive chipped cartriges, but it will still be much cheaper per page than an injet, however, consumers don't want them in nearly the numbers because the inkjet costs $29 or something equally rediculous.
        • Please, go fuck off and get a clue. Why do think they sell the printer at a loss? Not to be nice.

          The printing companies release inferior printers on a regular basis to keep selling old ink. Ink cartidges for a circa-1990 Cannon or HP inkjet printer are still being installed on $29.99 printers to keep the sales of old inks going.

          Drug dealers conduct business in a similar manner.

          The only people who benefit from an unregulated "free" market are the cartels who control the supply chain.
          • Buy a laser jet you goat raping ass fuck. But no, that would require you to TAKE SOME RESPONSABILITY FOR YOUR OWN FUCKING ACTIONS. AND that would be too much to ask, now wouldn't it. But wait, I forgot. You are a fucking retard that needs his government to do all his thinking for him.
            • Learn to read and write -- maybe you wouldn't sound like a blithering idiot.

              Do you think maybe the companies who sell inkjet printers (with high-margin consumables) at a loss don't mark up the price of smaller laser printers to discourage their sale?

              Who has $500 to spend on a shitty workgroup laser printer? Most people, even most geeks have better places to spend their limited funds.
        • Why should a few politicians outvoice the masses who have chosen to buy cheap printers with expensive cartridges?

          That's because these politicians are the voice of the masses. They were voted-in by the masses with the mandate to make laws like this.

      • What's worse, I did pay around $400 for my printer (an Epson Stylus Color -- no number, it's the original Epson Stylus Color) but a set of new cartridges is still over $50 -- and there's only one chain that carries them anymore (Office Max). This printer still works great, and ink for newer printers is no cheaper, but I'm tempted to buy a new one because at least I'll be able to find the damn ink (plus, the new models are faster and photo-quality [but thus use more ink]).

        I'm inclined to think this new law will just cause them to 1) stop selling the cartridges with a chip, instantly obsoleting the installed base, 2) charge more for printers, as previously stated, and 3) continue to charge $50 for ink.

      • Yeah, but cars are expensive, right? So are printers that have cheap supplies with lower profit margins on them. If you really want to get a printer that is cheap to keep supplied, you'll need to spend at least a grand for a color laser.

        If the bottom really does drop out on the supplies market, then printer prices will get higher. That's really fine and dandy with me, but will Joe Consumer (Joe Consumer != Slashdot Reader) really want to spend $500 on a printer so he can buy ink for $10 a pop? I somehow doubt it.
      • Even worse. You have to install a new fuel cell each time. The fuel cell can be filled at any gas station in the country, but when you take out the factory approved fuel cell to refill, it rips out the bottom.
      • Yeah. When the foil that the ink passes through developes a tear and leaks out into a pool destroying your printer, which is now VASTLY more expensive, I think HP will be the one having the last laugh. That's not covered in the warranty.

        Hell. On the up side, nice color lasers will get a little cheaper. Hmmm $500 for a lame inkjet, or $1000 for a sweet color laser.

  • mmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by doofusclam ( 528746 )
    This is a good thing. We all know about the razor blade/printer anology but it's gone too far with printers - they give them away with loads of big name PCs. Trouble is they're so crap, or the carts are so expensive that i'd never buy one of these bundles - these things aren't designed to handle an average users needs, they're designed to provide a revenue stream.

  • No More Ink (Score:3, Insightful)

    by perljon ( 530156 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @06:04PM (#4926521) Homepage
    When governments artificially interfere with capitalism, it always causes undesired consequences.

    If I were a printer manufacturer, I would not sell printers or cartridges in that country. I would still sell them to bordering countries. Net affect... You still have to buy my printer, and you still have to buy my ink cartridge. It just costs you more because you have buy it someowhere else (ie, internet).

    If I didn't go this route, and I decided to still try to compete, I would have to run two models of printers/ink cartridges. And I would be caucious of people in other countries exporting said printers. Also, I would no longer have revenue in ink. Therefore, rise my printer price as much as possible to a) discourage exports and b) still make some money off the deal. I would also have to add in the costs of running two business lines. So any savings in ink cartridges is almost certainly gone.

    My third option would be to change all of my printers to this business model. However, in the rest of the world, do you really think Joe Consumer, looking at two printers with identical print quality and relability would buy a $500 printer over a $50 one? I know I wouldn't. Therefore, very quickly, this printer company would only be selling printers in that one country who has mandated this printer law. (Companies know this, and I'm sure they'll choose one of the other two options.)

    What does this mean to the consumers of these government controlled printers? They're going to pay more money for their printing. Conclusion, Government regulation costs more money than it saves, and effeciency can be gained by removing government restrictions.

    It's like when those bonehead politicians try to place maximum prices on Gas or Food. Net affect, you don't get any gas or food, but when you do get it, it's cheap. I'd rather pay market value for gas than have none at all. Same with food. That's why the Russian Communist system didn't work.
    • Don't be silly. No ink manufacturer, shoe company or anything would encourage parallel trading. For one, they can't control the brand i.e. they can't advertise something they can't sell so they can't portray the image, and also it tends to piss off government who as much as we might not like it have massive leverage over manufacturers, which lest we forget in this case are massive international concerns with interests that could be majorly damaged by a pissed off government.

      Make no mistake: I live in the European Union (actually, England) and have no love at all for the EU, considering myself to my English rather than European not because I don't like them (because thats incorrect) but because I have nothing in common with most of them. Though I can see the interests in creating something that can compete with the Americas and China. But this is a damn good deal the EU thought up. Ink cartridges cost tons of environmental shit and they rip off consumers. Buying a $10 printer is an easy choice for Mr Average Joe because he doesn't think about the price of cartridges. Manufacturers rely on this and then rely on inertia to keep people buying cartridges at stupidly high prices. That's as artificial a market as I can imagine and it does nobody any good to keep it going.

      seany
    • When did the bonehead government raise the prices of gas and food?

      Gas prices are kept at high levels by a cartel of oil-producing nations who keep prices at a level that makes it difficult for competitors to prosper, yet very lucrative for themselves.

      Food are kept at high prices because a relaxation of government regulations allow conglomorates to buy up all of the smaller food companies. 85% of the food you eat is produced by 4 cartels.

      Market "efficency" introduces savings for large consumers. For example, Wal-Mart has the buying power to force companies to provide goods at lower wholesale cost. This results is higher margins for Wal-Mart, but forces manufacturers to move offshore and lower quality.

      The Russian command-economy (not communist after Lenin died) did not work because the cost of turning an agricultural backwater into an industrial power was simply too high. A more reasonable command-economy is China, which will be far stronger than the United States or Europe economically in a decade or two.

      If you'd rather pay market value for gas -- good for you. You end up sending so much money to the oil cartels, you'll probaly find yourself living in that car.

    • It's not an artificial government regulation, its the government breaking an artificial restriction. The printer/ink manufacturers create an artificial monopoly for their consumables. It's just like Microsoft forcing an non-uninstallable Internet Explorer on its customers. Except that on Windows, you can still install another browser. Whereas you buy a printer, your locked into that company's monopoly on ink until you buy another printer - when in all probability, you get locked into a different monopoly. The EU is breaking open the market again. Hope the Australian government follows suit...
    • When governments artificially interfere with capitalism, it always causes undesired consequences.

      Capitalism is a creation of governments, chum. Governments charter the corporations. Governments issue the patents and copyrights. Governments issue the property deeds.

      Don't confuse a free market with captialism. A market could in theory exist in an anarchy; capitalism relies on governments to create and enforce artificial "property rights".

      As for the case in question - if ideal market conditions existed, and all costs were internalized (you had to pay disposal costs for your throw-away cartridges) and buyers had full knowledge of the products (no hidden chips to prevent refilling), yes, market forces would probably arrive at an efficient solution. But these conditions do not hold, ergo mild intervention is warranted.

      This isn't price capping or anything extreme like that, just banning of a bad business practice that would never have evolved if ideal market conditions held.

  • current printers? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @06:08PM (#4926549) Homepage Journal
    I dont see this helping current state of affairs. What about printers that currently require that chip?

    Also, will this spill over into other countries? Ie, would manufactures make printers w/o chip requirements, and then simply market then to all? Or only make a set of printers specially for Europe, and Europe only, leaving chips in those destined for elsewhere?

    • Or only make a set of printers specially for Europe, and Europe only, leaving chips in those destined for elsewhere?

      That's trivial to work around. The only "region coding" on PC peripherals is the mains potential, which is twice in Europe (220 V) what it is in North America (110 V). That's easy to fix by substituting an appropriate power brick. But even if your printer uses challenge-response authentication to the power brick (gimme a break), you can still turn North American voltage into European voltage with a simple 1:2 transformer.

      Or maybe it isn't. Perhaps the printer maker could make the EU printer protocol subtly different from the USA printer protocol and ban imports of the copyrighted EU printer driver software into North America. (Under United States law, the owner of a copyright has the right to ban imports of a copyrighted work.)

  • HP researchers pioneer world's smallest difference engine.

    "I told you that pact would pay off," said one engineer.

  • hmm. not sure this is good. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cuthalion ( 65550 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @06:17PM (#4926631) Homepage
    I used write firmware for a company that made high end injet printers [colorspan.com] and here's what I learned about this there:

    1) HP replacement cartridges contain not just ink but also the jets themselves. While this makes the cartridges more expensive it means if you get clogged jets or burned out heaters, (both of which WILL happen) just buy a new cartridge rather than sending your printer off to be repaired (a la Epson). Hell, if you know what you're doing, you can even clean them yourselves, if they're readily acecssible (Which they tend not to be unless they're part of the cartridge, though this obviously isn't necessary)

    2) Additionally the circuitry is able to keep track of how much ink is in a cartridge. This allows the cartridge to know its own capacity and allows the software to let you know when it's empty. Depending on how you use your printer it may not matter, but if you're queuing up large print jobs and then leaving it to churn away, it is a benefit to know when you're out of ink, rather than putting stripes vaguely resembling your output on 200 sheets of paper.

    3) For high end color printers, if you're actually doing high end stuff ideally the print cartridge should be able to report information about the color profile of the ink in it. An alternative is to have each print cartridge come with a little card that you feed to the printer - that's what my former employer does, but that means you have more parts and more plastic, plus it adds another step to the process which people can screw up.

    • cheap refills are said to be made impossible by the circuitry which prevents them from being refilled. By removing the chip they want to do just that, make them easier to refill.

      Also the chip identifies the cartridge, probably copyrighted, so other manufacturers couldn't possibly reproduce it.

      Even though all this is held to be true, i know of companies that DO refill old HP cartridges,... Evergreen.
      People selling new cartridges in our store would often leave the empty ones with us. We then sell the empty ones to said recycling company.

      • Also the chip identifies the cartridge, probably copyrighted, so other manufacturers couldn't possibly reproduce it.

        In the United States, nobody can copyright something that is primarily functional and not expressive. US court precedents include Feist v. Rural and, more to the point, Sega v. Accolade. Thus, challenge-response authentication from one part to another where the response is a copyrighted work is ineffective because copying such a copyrighted work is considered fair use.

    • I don't think anyone would ever want to print a 200 page document on an inkjet. You'd probably have to replace your cart halfway through, anyway.

    • 1) HP replacement cartridges contain not just ink but also the jets themselves.

      I prefer the way Canon does it. A Canon BubbleJet(tm) printer comes with a replaceable jet cartridge. A jet cartridge contains the inkjet mechanism and comes with four replaceable ink cartridges (c, m, y, k) or two replaceable ink cartridges (cmy, k) depending on the model. Ink is cheap, but a jet cartridge costs as much as an HP cartridge. I tend to run out of ink in a month; the jets wear out after about half a year.

      Additionally the circuitry is able to keep track of how much ink is in a cartridge.

      Canon BubbleJet S520 printers put the circuitry for this on the jet cartridge.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • How does one go about doing this? I've searched around, and managed to find an interesting little 'here is how to reset your ink chips with some home electronics' I don't quite want to go that far. Does the process require actual new cartridges or can it be done with only one?

        The guide and program I found is here, for windows and some electronics for the parallel port:
        http://www.eddiem.com/photo/printer/chipres et/rese tchip.html

        As nice as it seems, I don't have anything around that I can use to build that contraption. I do like the foam cartridge socket, though.
  • I bought my HP deskjet 810C 3 years ago for about $150. To this day cartridges are like 40 bucks each. I've seen printers today go for 40 bucks each, or even less! This printer still has great quality and runs like its brand new. I think we can all agree cartridges being cheaper is a good thing. But I really wouldn't mind printers being more expensive. As long as they aren't prohibitively expensive. If my printer ever needed to be replaced (doubtful in the near future) I would be willing to pay like 250$ to get one that it just as high quality. So if the price of printers goes up, I don't mind. As long as the next one I buy doesn't cost a grand.
  • Most people can refill a pen. Why can't printer manufacturers make their ink cargtiges refillable in the first place? It's cost-effective, they can still make them proprietary (if they really want to), and so on. Heck, make an ink cartrige that uses pen refill things. Then you could put all those cool girly pen ink things (like those 'metallic gliterry' thingies) into your inkget and make your resumé look really l33t.
  • This is good! In fact, I think this is great news.

    Anyone remember researchers using inkjets to fabricate small components?

    As I recall, research in this area was hindered because people were forced to use the older, lower resolution printers since the newer printers had chipped cartridges making it hard to refill them.

    See this report [mrs.org] of the Material Research Society [mrs.org] for the kind of research that will explode once high res printers can be used.

  • Everyone seems to be on the pro/con $corporation bandwagon. This is only an effect of the decission.

    The issue is recycling. The EU considers issues from an environmental and economic perspective and not solely an economic. Their rationale is not so concerned with the monetary price as much as the environmental impact of these cartriges in manufacturing and land-fill.

    It appears the rulings were made from the responses from printer manufacturers et al. - With all their: can't this, wont that... While some of it is vaguely valid (eg replacement jets in the cart) This will only encourage innovation.

  • no more possibility of seeing a printer mod-chipping lawsuit hit the frontpage?

Slashdot Top Deals

/earth: file system full.

Close