Slashdot Mirror
Lexmark DMCA Case Winds On
The EFF filed a brief (brief, press release) in the ongoing case over Lexmark incorporating copyright-protected code in their printer cartridges in order to prevent competitors from producing compatible cartridges for their printers. The BBC notes some of the harmful effects of lack of competition in the industry.
Tell me about it. We've upgraded one of the printers we have at work from one HP to another HP (2500 Banner printer to the 5500). This is a printer that can handle 42" wide rolls of paper, and prints amazingly fast, and at good quality. So, you'd expect that it would run out of ink fairly quickly, right?
Wrong. The ink cartridges, IIRC, hold 680 mL of ink (one of six colours for this model), and I believe that we've changed out only 2 of the individual cartridges in the 7+ weeks we've had the printer. And we've been using it a lot.
Now, to be completely fair, we cannot use any other type of ink in this, as it will only take the HP inks. But when I replaced one of the cartridges last week, the old one was practically bone dry. It will print until it runs out of one of the inks, but it will only warn you about low ink, not stop printing altogether.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Here's the article he's getting his info from in case anyone is interested.
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
slightly off topic, but what the hell, I've got karma to burn.
I'd recommend against purchasing Epson inkjet printers. The last one we had, a 740i, had its jets clog up beyond repair. no matter how many times I'd run the cleaning function it wouldn't print, and even taking the think apart and trying to soak the print head in alcohol would help.
Apparently there's posts I found on some newsgroup that recommend at least cleaning/printing from that printer once a week or more...we would only use the printer occasionally.
So watch out and read those user reviews before you purchase a printer!
Just because the printer market is not monopolized does not mean that this is not unfair competition. Think about it.
The PRINTER market is not monopolized. However printers and printer INK are two different things. By denying other ink makers the right to compete at all, Lexmark is creating a situation in which only they can sell a product. They are creating a little ink monopoly. This is illegal.
Now, whether or not the courts will see it that way or not, who the hell knows?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
If you're thinking of buying a new printer because it's cheaper than replacing your cartidges, consider this:
Forget for a moment what you're doing to the environment (just for a moment, then go sit in the corner and be ashamed of yourself for 5 minutes), those cartidges that come with that cheap printer are "starter" cartridges - even if you can't find the fine print where it says that. So if the ones that came with your printer lasted you 6 months, crack open your wallet and spend the $25-$75 for a new set of cartridges that will probably last you a year or two. It'll save you money in the long run, and you'll be putting a lot less plastic in a landfill somewhere.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
You're asking an for an awful lot to include the disclaimer 'don't break the bank'. A good money-saving tip if you like ethernet are D-Link pocket print servers that change the printer's parallel port to an ethernet port. You simply telnet to the print server's IP address to configure it, so it's OS neutral. I was pricing printers for work and this solution was MUCH cheaper than printers with built-in ethernet.
From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
If I were to purchase an inkjet, which model can be easily and cheaply refilled, and carries a durable printhead?
Canon.
Canon was, AFAIK, the first inkjet company to have four seperate ink tanks and a seperate head. The prices are reasonable, the quality is good, and the consumeables are fairly priced. (A bit more per page than b&w laser, but still good.)
Only one problem with HP. they quietly added chips to the business printers'carts to add expiration dates to them. If the cartrige gets x months beyond the mfr date, even if its full, it reads empty. Supposedly to prevent print defects from old ink... yeah right.
I've worked in an office supplies retail environment before, and I've seen a lot of people who think it really is cheaper just to buy a new printer. Unfortunatly, the cartridges that come preinstalled in printers do not have the same volume of ink as the retail packages. Depending on the manufacturer, it was anywhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of the retail ink cartridge's volume.
What Lexmark is doing is preventing anyone else from making a replacement ink cartridge for their inkjet printers. They put a smart ship in their inkjet cartridges that can commuicate with the printer (things like ink level, etc) Lexmark then copyrighted the embedded code in their printers. Lexmark would not give a darn if someone made a printer that could use Lexmark ink cartridges.
But, Brand X decided to sell their own replacement cartridges for Lexmark printers. They had to make cartridges that could talk with the Lexmark printers. If they can do this, it might gut Lexmark's business plan (sell printer at cost, reap huge profits on ink cartridges). So, Lexmark has to make sure that people will want to use only genuine Lexmark cartridges in their Lexmark printers. Now they could try and do this with a big marketing campaign (convince consumers to pay more for their ink), or they could try to litigate their competition out of business (leaving the consumer with no choice of what cartridge to put in their Lexmark printer).
Lexmark claims this violates the "anti-cirumvention" clause in the DMCA. 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 (Brand X is not copying it after all). All that matters is that they are gaining access to it.
As other posters have pointed out, the automotive analogy would be for auto manufacturers to build cars that have the engine refuse to start if car detected any part (tires, oil filter, etc) that did not come from the only approved source. Of course in th US, there are specific laws preventing the auto industry from doing anything like that (because once upon a time the auto industry tried to shut down third party replacement parts by voiding warranties whenever they were used)
You either believe in rational thought or you don't