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."
Beter yet... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Beter yet... (Score:4, Funny)
--sex [slashdot.org]
What idiot would buy a Lexmark printer anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
I grant you they're often inexpensive to buy, but it seems Lexmark counts on making their profits by selling shoddy, overly-expensive ink and toner cartridges over the clunky two year (if that) lifespan of the cheap printers.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
It's an unethical, shameful way of doing business.
Couldn't they make their company profitable honestly, by making QUALITY products in the first place? Hmmm. But that wouldn't help out the attorneys, would it?
Just goes to show: patents and copyrights often protect only those who are unable to run honest or efficient businesses, and who don't have the interest in making quality products.
Re:Beter yet... (Score:3, Informative)
As funny as this is, there is a point to be made here. Roughly a year ago I bought a $300 laser printer made by Brother. (it's $250 today) I'm still on the original cartridge. I'm probably would have bought at least 2 or 3 ink replacement cartridges for my old inkjet by now. Frankly, I don't like futzing with that. Sometimes the ink just evaporates.
Right now it costs about $60 to replace the cartridge. $85 gets me a cartridge with double the capacity. $180 gets me 6x the capacity of the original cartridge.
That may be a little steep of an investment, but imagine buying the $250 printer + $180 drum (after the original cartridge is empty a year or two later) and never having to worry about it again.
Ah those are the daaaaaaaaaaaaays.
This is going to get pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
#jlk
Re:This is going to get pathetic (Score:2)
It may have been my subjective viewpoint after reading that article, but this price seems exorbitant (or maybe I'm just a cheap b*stard). It also seemed to me to be higher than the price for cartridges for competing printers.
I'm disgusted to think I can buy a basic color inkjet printer for about the cost of color + black cartridges for this one. What a waste of resources.
Re:This is going to get pathetic (Score:5, Funny)
(Or maybe I'm getting this backwards. Fine cognac might be expensive because it's made from inkjet ink... I don't remember; I'll have to look it up.)
Re:This is going to get pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
I did. I told them that I was going to dump my Lexmark printer (I got it "free" with my pc) and buy one of their competitors' models, if I didn't hear that they'd dropped the DMCA case.
Those Canon multi-tanked jobs look quite nice.
Re:This is going to get pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Please explain how buying another printer hurts the printer industry?
When I heard about this, I told the four or five people I knew who were planning to buy printers. They didn't buy Lexmark, and I'm glad to have informed them.
Re:This is going to get pathetic (Score:3, Informative)
Interestingly, we sell an HP color inkjet printer for 76$, and we sell the ink cartriges for that printer for 89$ (this is the price for both color and black). We have the same margin on all 3 products. Lexmark does the same exact thing, but we don't sell their printers, just the inks.
We have a guy that comes around and picks up our empty inks that people bring back for us to recycle. We can get 1-5 dollars each (model, brand dependant). They ship them to africa to be refilled, and then resold later in asia. One reason is because of this copyright BS lexmark is pushing on everyone.
Contrary to popular belief, the circuitry and printhead on the cartrige itself is what costs the most. The guy we sell our used inks to can get up to $10-$15 on some models, and the people refilling them are still making a profit even after shipping them across the world, refilling, cleaning, and reselling them for less than new. I have personally refilled my black cartriges for less than $5 each refill, and only after a few refills does the print quality go down (due to worn out print head)
Re:This is going to get pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Having worked at Best Buy I can tell you that the markup on toner is how they make their money. Buying at 5% above cost an employee may save a couple bucks on the printer itself, but on ink you save almost half. Not that this is really news to anybody but it's certainly the reason Lexmark doesn't want anyone else selling ink for their printers: it invades their revenue stream.
Re:This is going to get pathetic (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess you could argue that Lexmark has a similar margin to Best Buy, but you've shown no evidence of that here.
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.
Re:This is going to get pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Toner cartridges are just the toner itself, The 'print head' is built into the printer (yes, I know it is not realy a 'print head' but this is just an analogy). That is why the laser printer has to be a little better quality, manufacturing-wise, since the laser drum has to last longer.
Better yet.... (Score:5, Funny)
OUR? government (Score:5, Funny)
Oh...fuck the people. They left that one off.
Re:OUR? government (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:2)
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:3, Insightful)
No, my friend, that step doesn't happen until the half full cartridge that shipped with the printer runs dry; and then it is too late!
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.
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:3, Insightful)
If they win the court decision, and if it doesn't hurt their market share, other companies will do the same thing. Or maybe they will anyway. Manufacturers might figure that if they all screw the consumer simultaneously, they can all get rich together.
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:5, Insightful)
What next? Is Nabisco going to start telling me which brand of milk I have to use on my cereal? Will Windows require me to own a Microsoft mouse? Will my amplifier require their brand of speakers? Will my GE lamp only work with their light bulbs (don't get any ideas, GE)?
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:3, Informative)
Well I sell/upgrade/repair computers and people ask me all the time "What is the best __________ ?" When they ask *ME* about printers I tell them not to buy Lexmark. I think they are junk anyway. This is just one more issue.
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not. It's not reasonable for GM to put an additive in a GM-brand gas, and have GM cars only run on that. It's not reasonable for Lexmark to force you to use lexmark-brand ink.
Now, if they were to say that using 3rd-party ink violated the warranty, and detected that, so if you had a printer gunged up by a cheap knock-off ink they wouldn't replace it, then that's reasonable. But a blanket "you can't use it" isn't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly why I have an old HP LaserJet 4 Plus that I got off of ebay. Every once in a while the toner cartridge will need to be replaced, but for my needs I fill the cartridge once a year or so with a $14 refill kit. The last ink jet printer I had used ink like crazy, and if you didn't use all the ink up they dried out and you had to prelace them anyway. Color cartridges for the POS were $45 and the black cartridge was $35. I may as well have thrown the printer away and bought a new one every time at those prices.
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:5, Funny)
Some time ago, friends of mine here (in AK) began doing just that. They did the math, discovered it was cheaper to buy a new printer from [major membership-type warehouse outlet] each time a cartridge ran out. Perfectly good printers became targets for a wide variety of projectile weapons.
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:5, Insightful)
For now, and not entirely true. Have you seen how much HP makes from selling paper?
The specific inkjet nossel, or toner cartrage is highly customized to fit the particular printer. Thus it's entirely possible to use the DMCA to conceal the API, or the patent the particular usage of the device.
The gas nossel, or intake system is highly customized to fit the particular car. Thus it's entirely possible to use the DMCA to conceal the API, or the patent the particular usage of the device.
Someone that makes paper can do so for any number of printers; and thus can't have an injunction.
What's to stop HP from putting RFID tags in thier paper products and ensuring that only HP paper is used in thier printers? Absolutely nothing. It also would be protectable under the DMCA.
Someone that goes out of their way to produce a cartraige that fits a particular printer has an obvious intent, and thus is at least susceptable to court harrasment.
Open to court harrassment due to bad law. However that's just my opinion. Unless it can be proven that the cartridges violate a patent this shouldn't even be wasting a courts time.
What Lexmark and friends do is put 90% of their technology into their print-head. This makes the design slightly more expensive but it garuntees that you can't take advantage of alternative vendors.
It doesn't gaurantee anything. They hope that by putting 90% of thier technology into the print head you won't be able to use alternate vendors, but it doesn't gaurantee anything. Only through legal means are they able to effectivly stomp out competition. If the vendors are violating a patent then that is the direction a lawsuit should be taken. However putting a chip on the cartidges that reports the cartidges status and using that as a copy protection mechanism is simply assinine.
As it stands today I can drive over to any auto parts store in town and have a selection of air filters for my vehicle. If Honda followed in the footsteps of Lexmark I could expect that the next revision of my car would have a special mechanism to report that the airfilter was dirty and needed replacing. Due to the special mechanism I would only be able to buy a Honda air filter. Any third party manufacturer would be sued under the DMCA if they attempted to provide an air filter for that vehicle as they would have to "circumvent" the reporting mechanism for their air filter to work.
Is that a better analogy for you?
Re:Yes, Windows is a common term (Score:2)
Ford cannot stop other manufacturers offering alternative filter elements for their carburettors, for example. Why should a printer manufacturer be any different?
Re:Yes, Windows is a common term (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, Windows is a common term (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't "copyright" a design for a physical part. How do you think all those Taiwanese companies make knock-off fenders and body panels? Why do you see brochures at the dealer advising you to only buy genuine body parts even when your insurance company doesn't want to?
The reason you couldn't get a knock-off taillight is because your car wasn't popular enough for them to make one. They only make them for very popular cars because there's too many designs. You might be able to get one for a Ford F-150, but anything else, good luck. Most of the time, you either need to buy the dealer part, or go to a junkyard. Many times, people sell this stuff on ebay too.
Just because someone hasn't made a copy yet doesn't mean there's anything besides economics from doing so.
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:2)
don't you worry about the laws, little one, the market will decide in any case.
defeatism.
it may well be true that in this case the market will punish, and it also may be true that this decision was the correct interpretation of the law, but we should be no less concerned with the result or its ramifications.
think about what the post said, 'I think that it's probably reasonable for Lexmark to be able to forbid third-parties from selling supplies'. no - it is not at all reasonable for one manufacturer to control not only its product but an entire industry around it.
And if your car manufacturer ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about if you had to use Lexmark-certified paper in the printer, and there was a thin chip layer on each sheet that proved that it was approved?
Lexmark is using a technological macguffin and a bad, bad law to interfere with how you use your purchased product. The chip is really only there to invoke the DMCA. It's "purpose" beyond that is a sham. Lexmark is unwilling to compete on either quality or price on their inks. They are using a bad lawsuit to freeze out a legitimate market.
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:5, Insightful)
But they don't want other companies to do that?
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not sure this is the wrong decision (Score:3, Insightful)
A closer analogy would be auto makers selling a car for way below cost, like $1000, that could only be refilled by buying prefilled fuel tanks at the dealer. Then when people figure out how to refill the tanks, they embed a sensor and chip into the tanks to detect it was refilled and send a signal to the engine computer to shut off. And of course since the chip has copyrighted software, they lay the DMCA smackdown to anyone trying to circumvent or copy the chip.
That's it... (Score:5, Funny)
...I'm gonna start looking for a used DECwriter for my printing needs. Let's see 'em put some damned chip in a printer ribbon sool.
DIE DMCA! DIE!
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.
Re:Wish HP would create a universal cartridge (Score:3, Informative)
HP's system isn't all that unreasonable, since the ink tanks are held in vacuum seal and thus don't get any exposure to outside air, so the ink doesn't dry out. This is a problem with Canon's ink cartridges, since the ink is held inside a suspension sponge.
The nozzles in the printhead get dried out over time, which means that when you use up the ink inside a cartridge and try to refill it, you're using a crippled printhead. Nozzles get clogged from air exposure to residue ink after use, and pickup of contaminant particles (airborne and paper dust). I believe the average of clogged print nozzles in a printhead when you exhaust the ink supply in HP's traditional inkjet cartridges is around 25%.
Of course, the distribution of that can be rather uneven, which means that you might have one color that barely prints, or one edge of the printhead that doesn't print properly.
So, in principle, yes, a cartridge should just hold ink, but realistically speaking, HP's system ensures better printing quality.
Re:Actually.... (Score:3, Funny)
They bought HP Deskjet cartridges new. They drilled a hole in the top. They dumped out the HP ink and attached an 'IV Bottle' sort of arrangement on a hose, as you described, and used the HP cartridge as a print head.
Their ink bottle was much higher volume, and they effectively used the HP printhead mechanism for far longer than HP had originally intended. HP hated them and tried to put them out of business over it.
I worked there as a component level troubleshooter on the complex PCB assemblies that went into those printers (they had embedded 486s, I960s, Pentiums, and FPGAs, and this was back in the early 90's), and I talked to some of the development guys who had reverse engineered the HP deskjet print head. Needless to say, there's no public documentation of the pin layout on those cartridges.
Boycott Lexmark (Score:5, Insightful)
A Rebttal? (Score:5, Funny)
So, from the original story, the SCC has a rental site that warrents checking out. I'm not sure how they mean to make a profit on renting out ink cartridges, but more power to them!
Printing is sooooo last centery. (Score:4, Insightful)
Read it on the screen people, not on paper!
Re:Printing is sooooo last centery. (Score:5, Funny)
I guess I could tape a printout to the monitor, and put the monitor on a cart of some kind... Oh wait, we don't want to print.
I guess I could read the pdf and commit it to memory. D'oh, but another person can't read my mind (at least since I lined my toque with tinfoil).
Well, I'm out of ideas...
Re:Printing is sooooo last centery. (Score:3, Funny)
wait a second!
cancel
cancel
cancel
CANCEL
*sigh*
Re:Printing is sooooo last centery. (Score:3, Insightful)
The printed page allows you to cheaply have a group meeting where individuals make annotations, read-ahead / reread-behind independently of the presentation. An electronic device per person assumes interconnectivity (real issue when you're dealing with 3rd parties), and availability. (Company-wide meetings don't do well for providing every intern a laptop).
Also, I've yet to see a pen-style aparatus that's as easy to use as pen+paper. Putting your brain down on paper requires artistic freedom that the rigid uniformity of typed-text or even paintbrush-style apps can't yet provide.
If you're at school, it's unlikely that all your classes will allow e-submissions of your works. Especially if they're handing out form/exams for which to fill out.
If you're trying to comunicate with older relatives that boycott computers (yes there are still many alive and kicking), it's an absolute necessity.
Paper is still an order of magnitude more compact than a laptop (which generally desires tons of accessories). Personally, I still boycott laptops. The only requirement is to make sure that every place that you frequent have net access.
The paperless office was a pipe-dream - As the saying goes - If anything, computers have grown the requirements for paper many fold.
This isn't to say we shouldn't strive for it. Just that the lexmark issue is very real; especially given the clientelle of lexmark (budget minded home users and students).
Re:Printing is sooooo last centery. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just 4 things I printed just this morning...
Re:Printing is sooooo last centery. (Score:2)
Open market forces at their finest (Score:2)
In other news: HP buys Gillette
Ink is the only thing that HP makes money on these days. I wouldn't be surprised if inkjets become disposable soon. Gillette has this racket down pat.
Re:Open market forces at their finest (Score:2)
I have a HP720, which had some special features with the HP driver, but they stopped updating them at win98 (no 2000, ME or XP). Purchased it in 98 when it was still on the top part of the product line.
Wouldn't this lend itself to a new business model. (Score:3)
Oh wait, I forgot all businesses (especially HP who makes enormous profit off cartridges) are essentially C. Montgomery Burns. If they could block the sun, they would.
Yes, this is fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the genuine Lexmark ink cartridges are that good, then they shouldn't have a problem convincing people to buy genuine ones. Oh wait... the ink cartridges are only expensive because of an artificial monopoly on replacement parts? Not because they're actually that good? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Good News for Dell (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good News for Dell (Score:2)
Re:Good News for Dell (Score:2)
Regardless, Dell over prices EVERYTHING, I don't see how ink would be any differant.
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:I'll never buy another lexmark printer (Score:3, Funny)
"Why does it say paper jam when there is no paper jam! I swear to God, one of these days, I, I, I kick this piece of SHIT out the window!"
Never! (Score:2)
I'll drill holes in the cartridge and buy ink in bulk if I have to.
At work, we use arrays of inkjet cartridges to print names and addresses on high-volume web presses. They line up four of them, pull of the ink reservoir, and snap on a tube running to a bucket of ink. Works great.
This is really lame... (Score:5, Insightful)
How the hell do these toner cartridges affect the printer manufacturer's copyright? DMCA is supposed to be about protecting so-called intellectual property. That clearly is NOT the use to which it is being put here.
What's next? My "Check Engine Soon" light will be programmed to come on from time to time and the on-board computer will make the car run badly until the proper "reset" signal is used? And don't try to figure out the reset code yourself - you'd be in violation of the DMCA!
So this is an opportunity for a Lexmark competitor (Score:2)
this is ridiculous! (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely this must be anti-competitive? If a company providing the hardware has exclusive rights over parts needed to use that hardware, then they have a monopoly in the sense they can charge WTF they like for those consumables. It's ludicrous.
But then again, maybe market forces will decide this one... people will usually move away from the restrictive rip-off brands, as long as there is an alternative.
Oh no! (Score:4, Funny)
What's next?
Will it be illegal to make generic versions of RC Cola?
Illegal to make work-alikes to "No-Ad" sunblock?
No one will be able to make anything that looks like a Ford Pinto [bob2000.com]? Or one of these cars? [uglycars.co.uk]
What is this world coming to!
Well, at least I can still buy Tandy 5000 [attrition.org] compatible computers.
A wet dream for firms to build artificial monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
We do not live in republic or democracy we live in a Corporatocracy.
now wait just a minute! (Score:2)
I'm not one to support the DMCA, but to "...start a trust fund" for toner cartriages? Give me a break. I mean, come on - there's still plenty of competiton out there for laser printers in the first place. Even if you are the owner of a Lexmark printer, they still have a reason to keep costs reasonable so that you won't jump ship to an HP LaserJet.
Having said that, I think that SSC's reply is very reasonable and worth supporting. They are asking for specific exemption to the DMCA which would really help independent research or cloning for competing products in specific instances.
What a sad state of affairs (Score:2)
The DMCA is increasingly bringing the entire concept of Law into disrepute, challenging even the USPTO's unenviable reputation for crass stupidity.
How can anyone build a framework of laws which, on the one hand (anti-trust), tries to constrain monopolies and, on the other hand (DMCA), protects those very monopolies from the inadequacy of their own protection mechanisms?
As, I believe, I've said before, the DMCA is an absurd proposition in the first place, it appears to work as follows:-
Corporation X owns some intellectual property Y.
X asserts either copyright and/or patent rights to Y thereby making it illegal for others to "steal".
Not everyone else is law-abiding so X devises a technical mechanism Z to prevent theft.
Some law-breakers are smarter than X and find a way round Z.
The DMCA makes it illegal for the law breakers, who ignored the first law, to bypass Z.
Problem solved? Will all the law-breakers suddenly think "oh, this'll mean breaking two laws not one, so I won't do it!"
I don't think so. My only real worry though is that we'll probably have similar acts of legal stupidity here in the UK sooner or later.
Stockpiling old hardware (Score:2)
On the up side, maybe if this law becomes widespread, I won't get any more toner cartradge spam.
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.
Dot Matrix! (Score:5, Funny)
Get it from the EU then... (Score:4, Informative)
Dow Jones Business News
EU Parliament Bans Proprietory Printer Cartridge Policy
Wednesday December 18, 10:40 am ET
BRUSSELS -(Dow Jones)- In a blow to Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE:HPQ - News; HP) and other printer companies, the European Parliament voted unanimously Wednesday to ban them from forcing consumers to buy manufacturers' own-brand ink refills.
The printer-ink provision was included in a last-minute amendment to a bill requiring manufacturers of electronic goods to pay for recycling them. Conservatives supported it as a consumer-friendly action, while environmentalists welcomed it as a green measure.
"Consumers who are fed up with being ripped off when they need to replace the ink cartridges in their computer printers will be pleased with the requirement," said Robert Goodwill, a Conservative member of the parliament who sponsored the amendment.
The bill comes into effect in 2006.
Many color printers cost about EUR100 to buy, but replacement cartridges run as much as EUR40 each, Goodwill said. Companies have sprung up offering cheaper cartridge ink refills. But Goodwill said manufacturers had limited the use of the refills by installing computer chips on their original cartridges.
"When the cartridges are refilled, the printer comes up with an error message and many users are forced to buy expensive new cartridges from manufacturers," Goodwill said.
The practice may be harmful to the environment, as it limits recycling, and to consumers, but it has been beneficial to printer companies. H-P's ink and toner refills bring in about $10 billion annually, or about 15% of its annual revenue.
H-P dominates the market. According to consulting company CAP, H-P now has 44% of the $11 billion West-European market for printer ink, with Seiko Corp.'s Epson (J.SKO) unit with about 25%, Canon Inc. (CAJ) with 18% and Lexmark International Inc. (NYSE:LXK - News) with 10%.
Suppliers who refill ink cartridges or sell knockoffs have about one-fourth of the market, according to CAP. But their share is static.
Their complaints have attracted the attention of European Union Competition Commissioner Mario Monti. In May, he said regulators were looking into possible anticompetitive behavior by some printer makers.
"There's probably a case here for us," Monti said at the time. Since then, the Commission has been silent on the issue.
Complaints from refillers also attracted parliamentarian Goodwill. He visited the local Cartridge World shop in York and came away determined to insert the amendment into the larger bill about recycling of electronics goods. He and a Green parliamentarian first inserted the amendment back in October.
But the German government supported the printer companies' attempts to remove it this week. Bargaining between parliamentarians and governments went until 3 a.m. Wednesday morning, Goodwill said.
"The Germans wanted to defend their chemical companies which make this ink for the printer companies," he said. "When we threatened to hold up the entire recycling bill, they finally dropped their objections."
The printer companies still can appeal to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. H-P declined to comment. Spokespeople for Canon and Lexmark said they were unaware of the issue.
-By William Echikson, Dow Jones Newswires; 32-2-285-0134; william.echikson@ dowjones.com
Dow Jones Newswires
12-18-02 1040ET
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)
Keep the chip, replace the toner (Score:5, Informative)
I subvert Lexmark's plans by refilling my old toner carts with stuff from this vendor [tonerrefillkits.com]. While it's somewhat more difficult a process than just installing a new cart, I save over $150 with each refill.
Not affiliated with TonerRefillKits.com, just a happy customer. Don't be put off by their crappy website - the stuff ships out quick, is fairly priced, and works as advertised.
I worked at SCC (Score:4, Interesting)
Good riddance (Score:3, Informative)
As an "IT Manager" I get 2-10 calls a day from people trying to sell me toner cartridges. The usual pitch goes something like this:
"Hello Mr. Smith, my name is Todd and I'm calling from ABC products. We develop our own high tech toner cartridges and they are the best on the market. What I'd like to do is send you a cartridge; at no cost to you, so can you can see our quality product."
I know of a client who actually went along with it, and they were shipped a pallet of these things and billed for like $2,100.
Anyway...I have always found that genuine HP cartridges are the best value. We buy so many of them, we only pay a few bucks more than the imitations. Plus, even my users can tell when we've put a imitation cartridge in, instead of the genuine HP toner.
I hope Howard Coble is happy... (Score:3, Informative)
The lead author of the DMCA, Rep. Howard Coble [house.gov] is from North Carolina, where Static Control Components is located. It was almost even more ironic, since SCC is located in the 2nd Congressional district [house.gov], just about 10 miles east of Coble's own district (the 6th [weblogs.com]).
I hope the jerkoff really hears about it from his constituents... (I live in the N.C. 10th district; his office ignored me the last two times I called to chat.)
-FP
Clarification (Score:3, Informative)
These printers are apparently also available without the chip, but at a higher initial cost. This allows the buyer to obtain their ink from anyone and gives Lexmark a one-time profit.
So if my understanding is correct, Lexmark is only protecting their sales plan for these printers. They are not insinuating that third-parties should not be able to distribute their ink for Lexmark devices, rather, they want to prevent third-parties from manufacturing ink for THESE devices.
I am no fan of the DMCA, but I can certainly understand Lexmark's position in this matter. If the buyer purchased the printer at a lower initial cost with the understanding that they would need to recycle their cartridges through Lexmark, then I don't see why another company should be allowed to interfere by circumventing the agreement.
Then again, was there really an "agreement" with the consumer?
Re:Clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
More and more people seem to be under the impression that such a right exists, somehow. Somehow the collective thought of this nation has been convinced that if a business model has worked in the past, the government should support that business model in the future.
It's getting scarily pervasive; in the past it's shown up as subsidies for farming/steel/whatever industry from the government, but more and more frequently it's rearing its ugly head in the realm of copyright and intellectual property. At least the previous incarnations had the argument of national security nominally on their side.
Like I said, I'm sorry that this model doesn't work for Lexmark (without government mandates!), but the right thing to do is to try a different model, not seek legislative relief! There is no fundamental right to have a specific business model work, and our government has absolutely no compelling interest of the people at stake when it intervenes in situations like this.
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.
What about car parts? (Score:3, Insightful)
There have been several cases/laws brought to light in order to allow someone to use aftermarket parts to repair their car. You can go down to your local Canadian Tire (or PEP Boys in the US) and buy just about any replacement part for your car. Brakes, Brake pads, window motors, water pumps, gas tanks, just about anything you need to repair the mechanicals of a car.
Question... How is a printer any different? If my engine burned out I shouldn't have to go and buy a new engine! If I want to go to the scrap yard and perhaps get one pulled from a wreck that's my legal right. How can this same argument not be applied to the toner cartridge in a printer? Better yet if you assoicate toner to gas imagine if the gas in your car was vehicle specific. Having to buy GM gas from GM gas stations! That's not just wrong it's completely INSANE!
I just payed $84cdn to get new ink for my Canon as I elected to buy the Canon brand. However I didn't see a choice when I was in the store, it was Canon or nothing for my Canon printer. Sure I could have bought one of those
Wow, today is a dark day for competition indeed!
Syn Ack.
- Calgon take me away!
Yet ANOTHER misleading story..... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Which Lawsuit did HP lose years ago? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anyone remember who the litigant was and when the suit happened? As I understand it, that suit opened up the 3rd party printer supplier industry.
Chill with the Vitriol a moment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lexmark makes 2 different kinds of catridges for that printer. One kind, is sold at a higher price, and is yours. Free and clear. Once you buy it, you can refill to your hearts content.
The catridges, that have the chip embedded, are sold under a separate program. And they are referred to as "prebate" cartriges. You pay less for them up front. And are obligated to return the cartridge to Lexmark (at their expense) after one use.
The chips that are the basis of the lawsuit, are a way of reusing the "prebate" cartridges, rather than sending them back as you agreed when you bought it from Lexmark.
Lexmark VERY clearly says, all over their website. That if you want to refill catridges, just buy the "full price" product, and go at it.
Basically what this all boils down to, is SCC is selling a chip that allows the circumvention of an agreement that consumers made with Lexmark. And on that basis, I really don't see what the big fuss is about.
So boycott Lexmark (Score:3, Informative)
Buy from some company who are trying to produce products which will reduce your costs.
The Kyocera ecosys printers spring to mind.
http://www.kyocera.com/
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.
Obligatory Laser printer plug (Score:3, Informative)
Save your color printouts for an inkjet and try a laserjet for everything else! You'll save money in the long run.
Copyright is not a Patent (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. Copyright Office should not be used as an substitute yet uber-patent office. By adding any sort trivial addition to a mechanical device to lay a DMCA claim, one can create in effect a de facto patent protection of a commercial device, but with a much longer or unlimited term, and with a free ride of enforcement by the U.S. Government. This is clearly not what Copyrights are intended to protect.
Imagine an automotive company wishes to force people to purchase only tires manufactured by themselves. They first attempt to force consumer choice by patenting the idea of round tires, but the US Patent Office rules (correctly) that their design has not unique and denies the application. All the MBA's in upper management are crushed.
"Fear not," their lawyers cry, "we'll get something better...we'll get you protection -- and not for a patent's measly 20 years [uspto.gov]. No we'll give you 120 years [copyright.gov] of protection...AND the U.S. Government will investigate violations and enforce this 'uber-patent' for you."
"By adding a dime's worth of electronic tagging on the tire--we'll call it a Quality Verification Tag that says the tire is an 'original and not remanufacturered [com.com]' and have the car check for that before it starts." "No, because we'll say their tires infringe on our..." "No--and here's the trick--it infringes on our Copyrights, unjustly defeating our 'technological controls, thereby allowing unauthorized access [lexmark.com]' to the car." "Not with the DMCA. Fear not about competition or the previously notions of an unrestrained free market." assures the now quite confident counsel, "It's nice as 'general principle [internet.com]' but," he says as he smiles "public policy certainly does not support copyright infringement and violations of the DMCA in the name of competition [uscourts.gov]...."--
For those concerned that 120 years isn't long enough, a company needs only every 119 years just to change the "Quality Verification Tag" and get a whole new Copyright to fend off any and all competition -- for literally until the end of time (or at least the end of the DMCA)." Disney's aspirations ain't go nothin' on Lexmark.
Those who help create the U.S. Constitution wrote in Article I, section 8,
They are surely sitting up in their grave over this end run of authority, their spinning heads give out an incredulous cry of "Whaaaaaaa?"Re:Fair play (Score:2)
If you have Mac OS X this functionally is already included. http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/quartzextreme.
Re:You're missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're missing the point (Score:2, Interesting)
America is a strange country...
Re:You're missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, GM developed their engines.
Re:You can still refill (Score:2)
The printheads are 'disposable', they eventually clog with ink.
Try cleaning the print head carefully with a swap and rubbing alcohol. The goop you clean off isn't just ink, it's also paper fibers. An old employer had a Xerox inkjet fax machine. I'd refill the unit and swab the heads. Out of curiosity I put a label on the side of the unit and would "tick" whenver I refilled. The thing had almost reached 40 refills when it started to misfire.