Lexmark Invokes DMCA in Toner Suit 530
Rhyas writes "Seems as though Lexmark has decided it wants all the pie when it comes to the printing world, as they are suing a company that does reselling of chips that allow third party toner cartridges to work in Lexmark printers. Cindy Cohn, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said she expected more cases like the one brought by Lexmark. 'We have long said that the DMCA's potential use as an anti-competitive tool has been great,' Cohn said. 'Now we're seeing it happen.'" The European Union is taking action against the practice of embedding chips in printer cartridges which make it difficult for third parties to sell refills.
Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Lexmark, I dub thee the MS of printers!
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus, toner is a diffierent type of product than a video game. With toner, it is a consummable. Once you use the toner, its gone, and you have to buy new toner to continue using the printer. With video games, they last forever (well, assume proper care and the lifespan of the media they are on). You are never forced to buy new games to continue using the console.
Re:Hmm (OT) (Score:5, Informative)
The NES had no protection. I used to write code for it (amature) and if you feed it asm it will run it.
The only 'special' chips used are the (many many) different memory bank controllers.
But there is nothing from stopping one from making their own (As each game company seemed to have done) or even not using one if your ROM needs are small.
Im also pretty sure the SNES had no protection either, but wont swear to this.
The first sega console (The Master System) had no protection either.
The first system from Nintendo I saw with protection was the gameboy.
Its protection was the nintendo logo bitmap was not only in your code, but in the firmware of the gameboy itself.
It would display the logo in your rom image, and then the firmware would compare that bitmap with its copy. It would only continue to run if they matched.
What this means is to make playable gameboy software, you had to put nintendo's logo in it. The logic is doing so is a copyright violation or something.
Even systems as recent as the dreamcast and PS1 only used this form of protection, which is a Good thing (tm) because once the systems are discontinued and not cared for, hobbiest can write code, infringe on the copyright, and Nintendo not really care.
Only with Really recent systems such as the PS2, xbox, etc are there actual real technical measures and special data needed to even get code to run.
Sega vs. Accolade (Score:4, Interesting)
The court ruled that since Sega had intentionally placed their mark in the way of Accolade's legally protected right to interface with Sega hardware, Sega couldn't turn around and sue Accolade for infringement on that trademark.
Sega played with fire -- and got rather burned.
Caveat: IANAL, and it's been a long time since I read about this case.
--Dan
Re:Hmm (OT) (Score:5, Informative)
NES:
http://nintendope.iodized.net/thisoldnes/lock.t
SNES:
http://www.thepong.com/Sites/Left/Nintendo/SNTe
Re:Hmm (OT) (Score:4, Interesting)
The theory is that trademarks aren't descriptive or functional. You can't trademark "camera", or "press play". If you make your trademark either descriptive (let people use it for the generic class of product like kleenex or escalator) you will lose it, if you make it functional, you lose it as well.
Doing anything that requires use of your trademark makes it functional, so requiring it in the boot code of a CD or ROM means you'll lose it as a trademark.
So the company was told by the judge how the same would come out... "If you continue to push this, you'll succeed in making your trademark a functional part of the spec. And _Sony_ and _Playstation_ won't be trademarks anymore. You choose."
And supposedly companies now rely on trade secrets they can sue over having released, or cryptography, because of this trial and the fairly obvious outcome, if you think about it.
Car industry tried the same tactics (Score:5, Informative)
Thus the car makers could make extra profits on car maintenance (inderectly through their dealer network) and make cars a bit cheaper to lock in/tempt the buyer.
The EU also has forbidden this practice, and forces car makers to open the specifications of electronic and computer interfaces to the diagnostics subsystems. Also a new law enables each dealer to represent and repair any brand of car, i.e. it has become illegal for car makers to restrict the number of dealers (such as only those that do not do business with others) or to set up their own dealer network.
I think it is the same tactics, one that has been prevented now, shall be prevented too for the print cartidge market and hopefully too for video consoles and the like.
In general, the business model to almost give away some piece of equipment and then afterwards cash in on the required consumables or assecoires should be prevented, since it is misleading for the public and unethical.
Re:Car industry tried the same tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
Just one quibble: this is a tried and true business model. It's also a model that works very well for consumers since it allows them to spread the cost of the purchase over the lifetime of the base unit that's sold as a loss-leader.
In the traditional razor-and-blades model, there's no reason why you need to buy blades from the same company you bought your razor from. Many people do, so it generally is a good buisness model. But you can only charge so much, or people defect to off-brand blade makers.
The problem is that makers of consoles and inkjet printers are using technological measures to artificially inflate the profit they can make from the consumables. That's the problem, not the business model itself.
-Esme
Re:Car industry tried the same tactics (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Car industry tried the same tactics (Score:4, Informative)
They're also starting to crack down on manufacturers withholding service information like codes and tools from independant mechanics.
Re:Car industry tried the same tactics (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that they didn't "soak" people on th blades. They just relied on the "free razor" gimmick to create a customer base large enough to make the blades profitable. This made it a reasonable business move because ANYONE could make razor blades, but they knew people would mostly stick to the brand the razor handle had on it. Lexmark's actions are different. Embedding superfluous chips in their inkjet cartridges and suing reverse-engineerers under the DMCA to prevent anyone else from making refills is what's anticompetitive
DMca (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DMca (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DMca (Score:5, Insightful)
We know that (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the toner, but the chips. (Score:2)
The chips in the cartridges that mean they're 'authentic' Lexmark toner are digital though.
Think about it.. what these rip-off toner companies are doing is equivalent to cracking smartcards on subscription digital TV.
Re:Not the toner, but the chips. (Score:4, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with copyright infringement (Score:5, Informative)
The way the DMCA is written - and this is exactly the way that Lexmark is using it - is that the third party chips are allowing ACCESS to a "protected" copyrighted work. It doesn't matter that the copyright on the work is not being infringed (you are not copying it after all). All that matters is that you are gaining access to it.
This "exploit" of the DMCA was identified long before it became law. Oh well, when the Librarian of Congress is required to report again on the DMCA maybe he can address this issue as he has decrypting the blacklists in censorware.
Re:Not the toner, but the chips. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:DMca (Score:2)
RTFA.
"Lexmark claims that Static Control violated the DMCA by selling its Smartek chips to companies that refill toner cartridges and undercut Lexmark's prices."
So I suppose the chips had code to refill the cartridges which in turn pissed off Lexmark.
Re:DMca (Score:2, Insightful)
Three cheers for the American government for bringing this three ring circus to town;)
Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this fair? I don't know if it's a fair lawsuit under the DMCA, but it's fair for Lexmark to try and protect their interests. Lexmark is not a printer monopoly, and it certainly does not have 'all the pie' in the printing world.
The reason Lexmark is pissed is because it sells its printers as a loss leader, and then makes money on the ink cartridges.
This is not new. All console makers do the same thing. The XBox costs more than $149 to make, but MS sells them as loss leaders so they can make money on the games. Sony does the same. Nintendo does the same.
Yet most people would agree that hacking/chipping consoles so you can play stolen games is illegal, even if you don't think it's unethical.
What's different about the printer industry? They're just trying to make their money in the best way possible. After all, it's consumers who have forced them to offer printers as loss leaders rather than having expensive printers and cheap ink.
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
But how about hacking/chipping your console to play unlicensed - but not illegally copied - games, which is more equivilent to what we have here?
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
No it isn't, here's why:
1. It stiffles competetion and takes away basic freedom from the consumer (you can't buy part 1 from manufacturer A and part 2 from manufacturer B).
2. It produces huge amount unnecessary waste.
3. It misleads customers and it makes almost impossible to compare costs of printers during their lifetime.
Luckily, starting from 2006 this kind of practice will be illegal in EU and manufacturers will use standard cartiges.
"The reason Lexmark is pissed is because it sells its printers as a loss leader, and then makes money on the ink cartridges."
That's not an excuse, nobody is forcing Lexmark or anybody else to sell things at loss.
"This is not new. All console makers do the same thing. The XBox costs more than $149 to make, but MS sells them as loss leaders so they can make money on the games. Sony does the same. Nintendo does the same."
Sony and Nintendo doesn't sell their consoles at loss. But price dumping should be illegal also in console market.
"What's different about the printer industry? They're just trying to make their money in the best way possible. After all, it's consumers who have forced them to offer printers as loss leaders rather than having expensive printers and cheap ink."
LOL, "consumers forced"? You propably think that it's the consumers who forced MS to intergrate IE into Windows...
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
HT
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
What I think may end up happening is that the printer companies will find that the public has a distaste for this sort of profit structure and change their ways. The end result? Printer prices will rise, and supply prices will drop. There is an equilibrium that can be reached by making a profit off of supplies and hardware.
In a few years, I guarantee people start complaining that printers are too expensive. "They used to be cheap!" Tough, you can't have it both ways. Printing costs money.
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if people complain? Let them complain. At least the prices they'll deal with will be somewhat more honest, as will the business practices that involve dealing with the customer and the market, not the courts.
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you signed a contract with Ford that stated you would only buy their tires. Otherwise, you own the car and have the right to use whatever tires you want.
I don't have a problem with Lexmark making it technically difficult for competitors. I do have a problem when they use copyright, a government enforced monopoly on the software, to extend that monopoly into another market, i.e. the ink cartridge replacement market.
+1 Insightful on the MQR standard (Score:2)
I do have a problem when they use copyright, a government enforced monopoly on the software, to extend that monopoly into another market, i.e. the ink cartridge replacement market.
I think this is the most succinct and lucid statement of the objection to Lexmark's conduct that I have seen. I'd mod you up if I had the points, but I don't so I'll just try to draw the attention of someone who does.
-- MarkusQ
Re:no.... (Score:2)
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:2)
Now let's say I buy the same printer for $400(which will allow the printer manufacturer to make a profit) and buy the more reasonable priced ink for $200. I just paid $600 and cut my costs in half.
In other words, I sure as hell would rather pay full price for a printer than pay for ink that is marked up perhaps 500%. In the long run, I'll save money. The printer companies are ultimately making MORE money by selling cheap printers and outrageously priced ink. They are gouging consumers.
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Chips in tires (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not new. All console makers do the same thing. The XBox costs more than $149 to make, but MS sells them as loss leaders so they can make money on the games. Sony does the same. Nintendo does the same.
Thats their choice as a manufacturer to set up their profit structure that way. If it doesn't work out for them, tough for them. Try a different structure! :p
Holy shit, I'm gonna sell HDTVs, at a major loss to my company, then if you try to watch any other channel that doesn't generate Ad revenue for my company (so I can re-coup my losses, not your fault, and you OWN the TV and all) I'm gonna kick and scream and sue,SUE,SUE!
Just because Sony,Nintendo,MS do it to, doesn't make it a sound model for everyone
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine. Let them be pissed, it's not my problem.
This is not new. All console makers do the same thing. The XBox costs more than $149 to make, but MS sells them as loss leaders so they can make money on the games. Sony does the same. Nintendo does the same.
This wouldn't be the same Nintendo that got recently bitchslapped by the EU for price fixing by any chance?
Yet most people would agree that hacking/chipping consoles so you can play stolen games is illegal, even if you don't think it's unethical.
A lot of people think chipping DVDs is in some way illegal or immoral. It doesn't make it so.
If printer manufacturers want to make money on services, they can do it honestly like mobile phone telcos do by getting me to sign a contract. Otherwise they can take a hike.
I just have to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly, if Lexmark let consumers know that only their toner cartridges worked with Lexmark printers, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But they don't. In fact, I'd bet they even tried to supress the lawsuit beacuse of the bad publicity it causes them.
Finally, consumers haven't forced them to do anything. They chose their own business model, and now they have to lay in it.
Re:I just have to say... (Score:2)
Re:I just have to say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Know what? My coffeemaker says the same thing about using only "Genuine MR Coffee Filters". But at the end of the day a coffee filter is a coffee filter, and you don't see Mr Coffee suing generic coffee filter manufacturers for this kind of thing.
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Making and distributing pirate copies of software (read: console games) is illegal though. If I run an illegal copy in my (legally) modified console, I'm committing a crime. I'm not disputing that. However, it's important to know where the crime lies; not in modifying your equipment, it's in using an illegal copy.
Similarily, using and making third party ink cartridges is not (should not be) illegal. The fact that the ink cartridge may identify itself as something it's not is should not prevent it from being used. If that was the case, consider the vast majority of webbrowsers, what do they identify themselves as?
I for one think it's a Good Thing(tm) that this is being tried in a court of law. Hopefully, reason will win and ensure that we'll be able to use whatever ink cartridge we want in our printers, just as we can use any brand of tires on our cars, any kind of toast in our toasters or any kind of software on our Microsoft Windows based computers.
Oh, it's the consumer's fault... (Score:2)
Seems that the idea of giving away the printers and hoping to recover the costs with toner isn't so clever after all.
Seems that those people inventing that scheme weren't so clever after all.
Seems that this isn't the best possible way to make money with printers after all.
And instead of fixing the problem of selling at a loss, Lexus added some copy^H^H^H^H refill-protection to their cartriges. And, as with most copy protection schemes, they get broken sooner or later. What a big surprise!
By the way, are those the same chips that tell you that the toner cartrige needs to be changed, because the alotted number of pages has already been printed, even if the print quality is still perfectly fine and there is still enough toner left in the cartrige?
And are those the same cartriges, where half the printer is thrown away only because the toner runs out?
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
- XBox games are software. The licensing involved is for the intellectual property on the disc.
- A printer cartridge is a can of ink with some circuitry on it. It is well understood and many manufacturers are capable and legally allowed to make it (i.e. there is no intellectual property involved). Lexmark has essentially added unnecessary intellectual property to the can of ink, and now claims that it is being violated (even though it is not the actual product).
This is a clear case of Lexmark abusing this law for competitive gain. We will see much much more of this until the law is changed.A legal precedent to go after Lexmark. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is ofcourse not fair at all. Those printing a lot will pay way too much compared to those using a mere one cartridge a year. Lexmark wants to have a monopoly in Lexmark print cartridges. And it's using the free-market-crippling DMCA to get there (if it doesn't already have that monopoly). The choice to sell printers as a loss leader, is theirs. So are the consequences. The error you are making is assuming that Lexmark doesn't have a monopoly while it does (or at least will if they win) have a Lexmark Printer Cartridge monopoly. That market may be smaller, but it's still a small-scale-monopoly. What these guys are doing is using the DMCA in the same way as a patent can be used, except there's no way to get a patent on their ink-cartridges probably.
The only fair way to make this market-model work is if they just don't sell the printers but provide them under a contract that also forces you to use only their cartridges. That's the right way; it forces Lexmark to be clear about their demands (only use their cartridges), the customer knows what is going on (it does not now) and there's no need to use the DMCA or whatever.
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
> except there's no way to get a patent on their ink-cartridges probably.
That's so right, you should win a medal. Essentially there's no limit to the applications of this approach. Any sort of consumer behaviour that is completely legal can be curbed by grafting on some IP that would result in abuse of the IP from that behaviour.
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe its time for them to change their business model. Lexmark may not have a monopoly in the printer market; but, it sure wants one in the "ink Cartridges for the Lexmark printer" market. They are trying to use copyright law, which gives them a government enforced monopoly on the software they write,to extand that monopoly into the cartridge replacement market.
Yet most people would agree that hacking/chipping consoles so you can play stolen games is illegal, even if you don't think it's unethical.
I don't think the console makers are worried about priated games directly. They are concerned about making sure the game developer pays them a cut of every game they sell. If mod chips become commonplace, game developers can sell games without paying the console maker its royalty.
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one have never used a game console and I never will. Why you ask? Because on the game console market, once I have committed myself to a certain brand of console, there either is only one source for software or the soruces of software are controlled by one party. Ergo no competition. If I buy a PS2 I am limited to one source and that source is the only one selling PS2 games and can therefore control the price at will, a monopoly. I will also never buy a printer from somebody who forces me to use only brand products. And I will continue to do so until there is no manufacturer left who allows third party manufacturers to clone his cartridges. I would rather pay more for the printer and get the cartridges cheaper because it is guaranteed to cost me less money in the long run.
Nobody obligates me, the consumer, to get warm fuzzy feeling about some corporation wanting to max its profits by lashing up artificial trade barriers. I refuse to live in a marketplace where there are serveral "theoretical competitors" but in reality I am simply choosing which virtual monopoly I am going to be fleeced by. There is a lot to be said for free trade, but free trade ends where the holy quest to create artificial trade barriers begins!
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
I bought a Canon inkjet recently precisely because they don't screw me for refills. There are no chips, prices for official cartridges are reasonable, and there is a large selection of 3rd party inks. Better yet there is one refill per colour so if I run out of cyan, I don't have to throw out my magenta, yellow or black.
Personally I'd love to see some standardization too. There really is no need for so many cartridge formats except to lock in consumers.
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:3, Informative)
At work I recently researched an issue involving the repair vs reconstruction doctrine governing patented items. I ran across a case which I kept because it was funny. A suit for infringement was brought by the owner of a toilet paper holder against a company who manufactured replacement toilet rolls. The case is Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Preforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 US 425 (1984). The patent did cover the combination of the holder and roll. It went to the Supreme Court, but the patentee lost.
Too bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I have to balance the ethics of supporting them.
Re:Too bad (Score:2, Insightful)
For some time now Lexmark has been my first choice for printers and the one I recomend to friends/clients. I won't support a company who tries to pull this sort of stunt though.
Another reason (Score:2)
Cindy Cohn... (Score:2)
"Bnetd developers engaged in legal reverse engineering without circumvention or any illegal activity."
The way to stop this... (Score:2, Informative)
EU wants it both ways... (Score:5, Insightful)
While passing its own version of the DMCA, ironically enough.
Re:EU wants it both ways... (Score:3)
the current printer system is just stupid and gotten way out of hand anyways, you buy 1 black, and 1 color cartridge and that sums up to the price of the whole printer.. making the refill market more free would cut it back to make some sense..
Re:EU wants it both ways... (Score:2)
Thanks.
The latter is something that seems well behind on the US Governments list of priorities...
Seeing as there is no proof that man is responsible for global warming, can you blame them? (I assume you are chiefly referring to Kyoto). And no, I'm not American.
Re:Truth hurts, it seems (very OT) (Score:3, Insightful)
-Alison
On what planet do these bozos live ?!? (Score:2)
How on earth can they believe that such silliness will not backfire?
This has very serious implications. (Score:5, Insightful)
This means that there is the potential for manufacturers of other products that have consumables associated with them (your car, say) to put methods (a funny-shaped fuel filler, say) in to ensure that you can only use their consumables (fuel), and that a circumvention device (plastic funnel) so that you can use other consumables (fuel) will be ruled illegal.
Re:This has very serious implications. (Score:2)
Re:This has very serious implications. (Score:4, Interesting)
Software is a set of instructions and the explanation provided above is a set of instructions, therefore making it illegal because it has now become evident how to bypass the car manufacturers anty piracy protection.
Your argument makes no sense. We the consumer are loosing our legal rights. We are no longer sure if we purchased or rented a product. We have completed our legal obligation (PAYMENT) only to find out after the FACT that the terms of the contract were not those which were presented upon the sale of the product.
Could you imagine having to pay the architect who designed your house a royalty when you sell it because you have sold his intellectual property. Or that the builder of the car you just sold claims that you infringed on ther Copyrights because you painted the car Pink when that car does not originally come in pink.
Everything we build is based on a set of instructions (software) therefore your argument applies to all and everything.
Once the SALE, and note I did not say RENTAL, is finalized, the manufacturer of the product no longer has a say in what I do with his product.
Re:This has very serious implications. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This has very serious implications. (Score:3, Insightful)
Terms of Agreement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Something such as "By using this printer I agree to only use Lexmark toner etc etc..."?
That's the only way Lexmark's attitude would make sense.
I think unless you prohibit certain potentially anti-DMCA activities at the outset, it's pretty cheesy to go after people later....
Re:Terms of Agreement? (Score:2, Interesting)
(My italics)
So if they decided that a copycat cartridge stuffed up your printer they may try to wriggle out of fixing it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Terms of Agreement? (Score:2, Informative)
In case anyone else is wondering, Lexmark has a 'prebate' program where you can buy cartridges cheaper than 'non-prebate' cartridges. When you buy one of these, you have to agree to mail the cartridge back. When we would order them for the computer lab I worked in, they always came with a UPS label to mail it back. I'm pretty sure a printer is supposed to come with a regular cartridge.
Re:Terms of Agreement? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that anyone who tried the latter would be laughed out of court... When you buy a hammer it's yours to do what you like with.
Waste (Score:2)
Under section 1201 of the DMCA, it is generally unlawful to circumvent technology that restricts access to a copyrighted work.
Generally unlawful? Thats what they're hoping will win them this case? A broad statement...how general is the unlawfullness? LOL
the company claims the Smartek chip mimics the authentication sequence used by Lexmark chips
Is this something the consumer is aware of when purchasing the printer? That only Lexmark© carts will be "allowed"? Its amazing what the technology market can get away with as far as trying to control what the consumer, who owns the product, can do "lawfully" with it. This shiznit is out of control.
Oh, but they are (Score:2, Informative)
It is a federal court after all.
Re:Oh, but they are (Score:2)
wow...talk about scary (Score:2, Funny)
Is this how the internet and all that was once free will come to it's end?
isn't there a master document we can cast into a mount doom to stop the madness?
and people wonder why I prefer fiction to reality, in fiction, you might actually win!
WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
I like Lexmark printers, but knowing they're chipping their carts is going to keep me from buying or recommending them to others.
I hope this gets thrown out of court and whoever passed the DMCA into being a law (so loosly written and obvious that it'd be used for the greater good of corporations) get voted out of office.
Trying to prohibit backwards engineering? (Score:5, Interesting)
anticompetitive tool (Score:4, Interesting)
Notice how regioning makes it (for practical purposes) impossible for USians to mail-order e.g. European/region 2 movies, TV shows, etc., over the internet, for absolutely no good reason?
Re:anticompetitive tool (Score:4, Informative)
All you need is a multi-region player, most of the cheapo non-brand ones are multiregion from the box, and most of the decent ones can be chipped or hacked for $0-$50. I'm currently on a Pioneer which came ready-chipped from the supplier - it's all totally legal over here as region coding has no actual basis in law. I'm under the impression that multi-region players like the Apex are popular in the US (even though the quality sucks) but I'm not sure how easy it is to get decent players chipped over there.
Uh-oh! (Score:2, Funny)
How fscking utterly asinine.
Boycott of sorts?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
They RELY on people to buy their products to stay in business. If nobody does, OOPS, the revenues go down.
Screw 'em I say, SCREW 'EM!!!
Just my
EU Reason - reduce waste (Score:2, Troll)
They are not, at least on the surface, doing it to discourage competition in the marketplace.
Talisman
Wanna get pissed? [remail.org]
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
The essential problem . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm impressed. I never foresaw the DMCA protecting us from toner.
Apply this to automobiles (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Magnuson-Moss applies here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember IBM typewriter ribbons?
Yeah, I remember those. And, you know what happened to IBM's printer and typewriter division? That's right, it was spun off into (da da da dum)... Lexmark.
It's not surprising, really.
Here's what I would do. (Score:3, Insightful)
After the successful lawsuit, the Federal government will force the printer manufacturers to allow approved third parties to manufacture printer consumables that will not violate the printer warranty.
No more SPAM? (Score:5, Funny)
These products need to be... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying I agree with them, just that if they wish to conduct business in an underhanded fashion, consumers should know about it upfront.
I think I may go back to a dot matrix printer for most of my junk printing, yeah they can be slow with graphics (I don't print graphics too often), but you don't need to worry about paper for sometime if you buy the big box. A reinker for the cartages is fairly cheap as well.
I hates inventing titles. (Score:3, Insightful)
DMCA not needed -- been there done that (Score:5, Interesting)
I suggested that we burn in "Copyright xxxxx corp" into the chips, and make the software look for it. If you weren't xxxxx corp and you made a copy chip, then you would have to copy a copyright notice that wasn't yours.
As has been said by others, the printer companies don't make money on printers at $150 (or less) per unit. If you wan't to pay $1500 for the same printer (think of all those cartridges) and buy your ink just anywhere, that's a possibility. I wouldn't take bets on that as a viable business model, though. Can you imagine walking down the aisles at Comp USA,
Re:Copying a copyright notice (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironic that I was looking at a Lexmark Printer (Score:4, Insightful)
So in the end, I begin to wonder if the printer industry has a business model similar to that of the console gaming industry. (Although I would find it odd if they sold the printers at a loss as consoles often do initially)
Lexmark Z45 License Agreement (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't like them. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry to see that Lexmark has decided it no longer wants geeks' goodwill.
Defendent's website chock full of good info! (Score:4, Informative)
Just buy Canon (Score:4, Informative)
For example, let's say that you have a Canon ImageClass C2100 color laser copier. You go to CompUSA and buy some generic brand of high gloss paper that claims to be compatible. You pop a sheet in, and the third sheet melts in your fuser. Canon will not always honor the damage caused by that third party product, of course, because Canon has no way of testing the material beforehand, and they have no control over the third party's production techniques and claims. On the other hand, if you use approved Canon media and supplies, then you have nothing to fear under their very nice and expansive warranty.
Furthermore, this is no secret, but Canon manufactures almost all HP engines. Almost all other manufacturers lease out many Canon patents to make their stuff work. Why bother going second-hand when you can just buy directly from the source?
Yes, I am a satisfied Canon customer of three years. After dealing with Lexmark and HP for years at my past job, I couldn't dream of ever switching from Canon.
Re:i agree (Score:2)
Re:i agree (Score:5, Informative)
Others have suggested that Lexmark is trying to recoup their losses from selling their printers as a loss leader, but again we aren't talking about $89 inkjet printers. These are $1,100 laser printers. I really can't believe the hardware is sold at a loss.
When the toner runs out, I have 2 choices. I can pay lexmark $300 for a replacement cartridge, or I can take it down the street and have it rebuilt (toner refilled, image drum replaced, wiper blades and other internal parts replaced, etc) for $150 and the print quality is just as good. The guy that refills them for me says that $50 of that cost is for the computer chip that has to be replaced each time. If the print quality is still good, the cartridge can be refilled, without having to be rebuilt, but the chip still has to be replaced.
You see, if you simply refill the cartridge, and try and put it back into the printer, the printer says "wait a minute, last time I saw this cartridge, he was empty, and now he's full. Something fishy is going on here, so I'm not going to let him print".
We have used Lexmark laser printers exclusively for the last 8-10 years, and have been pleased with them from a quality standpoint (we are producing camera ready copy for printing, so quality is important) but over the years, the printers haven't gotten any cheaper but the toner costs have tripled. It's getting hard to justify staying with lexmark when they have such a restrictive business model, not to mention the environmental costs of having to buy a new cartridge each time as opposed to reclycling a perfectly good cartridge.
Then there's their "prebate" program [lexmark.com] where they charge you an additional $50 for a non-prebate cartridge (with a prebate cartridge you agree to return the empty cartridge to lexmark and not have it refilled). Lexmark's justification is that for the extra $50, you gain unrestricted use of the cartridge, and can refill it if you like, but guess what, now that they are destroying the aftermarket chip suppliers, you won't be able to use the cartridge that you paid extra for, because you won't be able reuse it without a chip. Figure that out. Basically it's a EULA for toner cartridges.