Lexmark Wins Injunction in Toner Cartridge Suit

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."

Comments

Not sure this is the wrong decision

[Alderete]

While I'm certainly not a fan of the DMCA, I'm not sure this is a poor decision by the courts, etc. I think that it's probably reasonable for Lexmark to be able to forbid third-parties from selling supplies, if that's a business decision they want to make.

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.

I'll never buy another lexmark printer

[seanadams.com]

I bought their Optra C710 color laser about a year. I thought I was getting a deal at $1200, but it is the worst printer I have ever owned.

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:

• Why does it say paper jam when there is no paper jam?
  
• "Coating roll life warning" and "transfer belt warning" come up all the time, even right after fresh ones are installed
  
• Duplexing option jams on every 100th sheet
  
• Print often seems to stick to the transfer belt and gets "ghosted" onto subsequent pages
  
• The printer just disappears from the network at least once per day and needs a hard reboot
  

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.

Hurray! This is great!

[thorrbjorn]

Yes, I'm serious. This court ruling makes me very happy.

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 ... that might get their attention.

HP says it won't follow suit

[jACL]

From a Businessweek article: 'More important, Hewlett-Packard (HPQ ), which dominates both the printer and the $7 billion toner market, has no intention of following Lexmark's course. "We believe in customer choice," says Pradeep Jotwani, the senior vice-president who heads HP's lucrative imaging-supplies business. "If they want to buy from remanufacturers, that's fine. It's our job to make them not want to."'

I worked at SCC

[unix guy]

Although I've not been at SCC for over 6 years, I must commend SCC on their uncanny ability to reverse-engineer ANYTHING related to printer cartidges. While I was there HP released a cartridge purported to be impossible to open (5Si), therefore impossible to recondition. These guys immediately manufactured a machine designed to cut them open without harm, and all the parts to refit it. Copyright infringement is not something I would accuse them of, and being extremely good at what they do should not be against the law.