Slashdot Mirror
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."
Start using Laser Printers.. o wait...
Newsfollow.com
I cannot see how this is ever going to turn out good for the consumer. This will enable the makers of printers to almost charge whatever they want for their cartridges.
#jlk
Just print everything at work.
Life in Orange County
Of the people, by the people, for the people?
Oh...fuck the people. They left that one off.
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I mean seriously, why do people cling to such an outdated technology? When it comes to documents why not just print to PDF and email it?
Read it on the screen people, not on paper!
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Create a good printer with an open spec on cartridges and make them refillable (sell the refill kits). It's better for consumers, it's better for the environment and the printer company can still make good profits.
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.
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.
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
This is good news for Dell. They'll be selling their own printers in about a month, and anything that makes other manufacturers look bad will help them gain marketshare. What will be interesting is to see how Dell plays in the ink cartridge business. Will they try to be like everyone else, or will they try to do to ink prices what they've done to PC prices?
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.
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!
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
"In other news, General Motors win a successful injunction against Michelin for producing replacement tyres for their cars. Now only GM's proprietary brands may be used..."
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.
The lowest quality brand of printer on the market has decided that people can't copy their cartridges!
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? Or one of these cars?
What is this world coming to!
Well, at least I can still buy Tandy 5000 compatible computers.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
And who says that I need approval to produce products that interoperate with the products of another manufacturer? That's so silly, it's as if a hammer manufacturer could force you to buy his (overpriced) nails if you bought his (cheap) hammer. The market just doesn't work that way. Things like this are a recent development, and there is no absolutely no justification for it. When someone sells me something, he gives up his rights on it, and it should be my own choice how and with what I use ist. And it should be other peoples' choice to produce that with which I might want to use the item I bought...
America is a strange country...
Exepect such chips to appear in every kind of items where you have consummable, or additional part needed. Now that a judgement has been upholded that you can use the DMCA to stamp out somebody making a cheaper replacement, you can artificially make your own monopoly. Buy Ford Tire ? We have this new chip we check for air pressure in it ! Secure and stuff. You want to replace it ? Oh, bad luck you have to do it at our condition in a ford garage. Oh, and don't try to put another tire the car won't start (security check on tire pressure fail).
We do not live in republic or democracy we live in a Corporatocracy.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Have you ever had to replace a broken tail-light? Auto manufacturers *are* copyrighting their designs only to prevent competitors from providing inexpensive replacement parts.
"God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
I hope you use only GM oil filters, GM oil, GM air filters, and none of those illegal third party auto parts in your car.
After all, GM developed their engines.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
...right now, they are concerned about the cash cow of their printers. They specifically designed a machine that requires their own cartridges and then candied it over with claims of higher quality, etc. Even the average consumer knows better than that -- they created a system that hides behind litigation to protect their market share.
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.
I'm telling you man, it's the printer of the future! You don't have to replace ink! It tells you when your printing has start, and finished through an excellent system of horrible screeching! You can buy a box of paper and never have to reload a tray! Plus, you get alot of extra strips of paper with the perforated tracks, which you can use to make nests for some of the local fauna!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
When does scc-inc.com get redirected to the DOJ website?
Terrycloth Lobster
Well - this problem seems to be impacting the ppl from North America. Check below for the current status within the EU - if someone knows of any new developments - please post!
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
Yes, I'm serious. This court ruling makes me very happy.
... that might get their attention.
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
And if Ford put a DMCA-covered chip in the filter, and your car wouldn't start unless the filter had the chip, Ford could force you into buying factory filters.
If they had a patent, I'd agree with you, and this would be a non-issue.
But they dont have a patent, and they cant get one. So they circumvent patent law using the DMCA, all they have to do is stick a little chip in the cartridges that the printer detects, and if you circumvent that, you're in violation.
The tech industry is getting chock full of companies trying to protect with copyrights or trademarks that which they cant protect with patents.
For instance, the PSX (and PS2) forces the sony logo onscreen as part of its bootup sequence and protection scheme - it must be on the disc to boot. So when Action Replay/Gameshark came out, they had to put the logo on their unlicensed disks for it to work in a real machine. Sony, who couldnt patent the boot-up process of the console, then sued them for trademark infringment for using the PS2 logo. A judge struck it down, saying they couldnt protect with a TM something that was unpatentable.
Copyright, patent and trademark exist for distinct purposes and with restrictions. Enough with the cutesy legal tricks to bypass those restrictions.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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."'
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
I subvert Lexmark's plans by refilling my old toner carts with stuff from this vendor. 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.
This battle has been fought before, if not in the courts than in the marketplace.
Without saying anything about the quality of certain brands, what really allowed the PC to become the dominant computer over Macintosh was the fact that PC parts were commodities. This allowed the prices of PC parts to remain low, increasing demand.
If Lexmark continues to block other manufacturers from creating Lexmark compatible cartriges, another printer manufacturer will realize the benefits of increased market share, and allow their printers to use cheaper ink.
Just ask any economist!
An online Starcraft RPG? Only at
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
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.
"Straddling the sword of technology..."
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 thought there were some pretty high profile cases many years ago where one of the razor makers (Gillette?) tried to shut out other companies from making blades compatible with their razors but it was ruled that they could not restrict other blade makers.
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.
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff
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!
Yes, Lexmark got an injunction... a PRELIMINARY one. That only means that those which they are suing, Static Control, cannot make/sell/whatever is in the injunction, pending the outcome of the case. It DOES NOT mean that NO ONE can manufacture replacement cartridges. It is only a temporary measure to halt production in the meantime until there is a judgment. While not good for Static Control, it does NOT signal the death knell for cartridge replacement.
Who the hell is stupid enough to buy a Lexmark inkjet in the first place. Their business plan is so transparent that you have to be really thick not to get it.
1. Sell printers with half a cartridge of ink with a loss to atract joe-sixpack (EXTRA now with flashing colours for just 99,99 or whatever).
2. Sell cartridges at inflated price to cover for step one (joe-sixpack: I already paid for the printer so why not buy the ink).
3. Profit
In the last six years (not shit) I've gone through three tonerpacks for my HP4L. If you don't desperately need those stupid colors, then why let yourself get raped by those gorillas ? Laser is so much cheaper.
And if you really, really need those colours then for heavens sake buy two printers (one laser, one ink). It will save you in the long run. Black ink is also pretty costly.
TCAP-Abort
TCAP-Abort
There was a time when monopolies and trusts were seen as an integral part of thriving capitalism. And now, practices like this, selling the base system at a loss and making money by gouging on components, are seen as common as well.
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?
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
They suck.
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.
Whatever printer I get now, it won't be a Lexmark.
I just called Lexmark on their toll-free phone number to tell them how despicable I thought this lawsuit was. I told them that, unless it was dropped, I would never purchase another Lexmark product nor would I recommend their products to clients or colleagues. If you feel that way, call them:
In the U.S., their phone number is:
1-800-LEXMARK (1-800-539-6275)
Hours:
Mon - Fri
9am - 9pm EST
Saturday
12pm - 6pm
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.
Watch Lexmark cut the size of the cartridges as well.
They don't need to. There's been long-standing accusations that the ink cartridge manufacturers don't completely fill the cartridges they sell, so the ink doesn't last as long and the consumer has to buy refills more frequently.
One thing to consider. The cartridges in question, are *not* necessary for the printer.
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.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Bypass the manufacturer and remanufacturer altogether - just get a refill kit from www.inksell.com. No, I'm not an employee, just a happy customer.
They have a kit for $9.95 that has enough ink for two full refills. Your future refills are only $2.95 per ink bottle (once you've got the kit).
Takes 5 minutes or less to do the refill. The only difficult part is breaking off the top of the color cartridge but they supply a tool for that.
I've been using the same ink cartridge for about 6 months and I do a lot of printing. I've probably refilled it like 4 or 5 times now and it still works like a champ.
I don't have to feel guilty about printing full color photos anymore.
859-232-2000
1. Ask for the president's office, and when connected, tell them that you refuse to do business with a company that is using a dubious law to squash competition!
2. Ask them why they don't feel that their product is a good enough value, that it will sell, without doing business in this manner!
3. Ask them what the procedure is for returning your Lexmark printer to them, since they did not make you aware, when you purchased the printer, that you would be forbidden buy law to use 3rd party replacement ink!
Let them know that their conduct is unacceptable.
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/
Deleted
There are a wide variety of sites were we can go to get information about price, performance, features, and everything else relating to a new product we want to buy. Rarely do any of these places contain any information about whether purchasing the product will lock the buyer into buying supplies for that product from the OEM only. I think this is mostly because this has hardly ever been an issue in the past. I may have a GM car, but GM can only tell me that my car will run better with original GM replacement parts, not that I have no choice.
It seems to me that this should be a part of any good review of a product. A review of a Lexmark printer on a reputable site on the web will tell me the lifetime of the cartridge, the number of pages printed per minutes, the quality of the print, and many other things, but never touches an issue such as whether supplies are available from third parties.
Perhaps this should be considered to be an important element to any product review in the field of consumer electronics. After the events of the last few years and the effects of the DMCA it certainly is for me.
I'm not happy with the ruling. However, this doesn't spell the end of competition. There are several manufactures of printers. Even if each where to be able to lock down all sales of cartridges for their own printers, it's still a long way from a monopoly. No monopoly, then I would also assert the situation's a long way from printer manufactures charging "whatever" they wnat. They do afterall have to compete against the total cost of ownersihp of the other makes of printer on the market.
Dell's supposedly bringing it's own printer to market, that should keep the other pretty honest.
This action by Lexmark is nothing more than a BLATANT attempt by a manufacturer to create an artificial monopoly. It is in NO WAY limited to the consumer inkjet industry, and there is NO LAW--anywhere--that gives a U.S. company the right to create such a monopoly. If anything, SCC should investigate if Lexmark has violated the Sherman anti-trust act.
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.
There's a lesson here for you. The people who work at auto parts behind the counter aren't authorities on the law or very knowledgeable about what's going on in the industry! I hear all kinds of stupid crap from people working at those places, and I just ignore it. If they tell me they think something will or won't work because of past customers, I'll put some stock in that. But anything outside their expertise, forget it. I've met lots of them who didn't even know what variable-valve timing was, and that's been on lots of cars for years; anyone who keeps up on the latest engine technologies would know about it.
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.
The Copyright Office is currently considering a petition to exempt printers/cartridges from the DMCA (at Static Control's request, of course!). You have until March 10 at 5pm EST to comment.. html.
Tell them what you think at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/comment_forms/index
I bought a used HP 1100 for $86 shipped on eBay and I couldn't be happier. Most laserjet printers are supported in Linux and it seems from the little research I did, there's a whole industry devoted to refurbishing and reselling laserjets, especially HPs. After a year of cursing over trying to get a Lexmark inkjet running in Linux, it was wonderful to see the HP running on my Samba box after about 40 seconds of configuration.
Save your color printouts for an inkjet and try a laserjet for everything else! You'll save money in the long run.
This guy is way out there
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. No we'll give you 120 years 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' 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' 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' but," he says as he smiles "public policy certainly does not support copyright infringement and violations of the DMCA in the name of competition...."--
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?"How is using the recycled toner cartridges stealing Lexmark's intellectual property? Did SCC steal Lexmark's design? Is SCC hacking the cartridges?
If I need to replace my inkjet cartridges, I can buy a whole new printer for near the cost--which has been tempting several times. I tried using refill kits, but don't quite have the knack yet. I got the color cartridge to work once, but I think I let it sit near empty too long--my fault.
If companies spent the money on R&D to develop new products and more efficient means of manufacturing the current ones instead of litigation, technology would advance faster and the consumers would benefit.
The only losers in that situation would be the out-of-work IP lawyers. And I don't see that as a problem.
If the printer manufacturers are going to void warranties and take such steps to prevent the use of third party consumables, then they need to bring the price of those consumables down a bit.
GM can't void your warranty for using a Fram oil filter or require an OEM part unless they provide it free of charge; why should printer manufacturers be allowed to block out alternative consumable sources?
I'm not saying cartridges should be free; I am saying that the consumer should be free to choose. Next step is requiring the use of branded paper in the printers.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?