Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lexmark DMCA Case Winds On

Posted by michael on from the big-brother-inside dept.

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.

14 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. Here's a thought... by H0NGK0NGPH00EY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...don't buy Lexmark printers? I mean, seriously, as long as Canon and HP et al aren't pulling these type of stunts, won't the market take care of this itself?

    --
    Do not read this sig.
    1. Re:Here's a thought... by Godin21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except the average consumer doesn't know why they should care. Lexmark printers are cheap and often given away with a new PC. So why not take it? When it comes time to replace the cartridge and realize there is no other option besides the Lexmark ink, they will buy it anyway, because $32 is cheaper than $180 for a new HP printer. And next time they buy a computer, they will accept the free lexmark, complain about the lack of ink cartridge options, and proceed to allow their kids to print off banners of Spongebob Squarepants from Nickelodeon.com. The average user doesn't care, and if they do, don't know how to go about changing it. My guess is that the average user is lazy, and would rather spend twice as much on the ink instead of being bothered to educate themselves.

    2. Re:Here's a thought... by retto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      as long as Canon and HP et al aren't pulling these type of stunts, won't the market take care of this itself?

      And if Lexmark wins, what would stop the other manufacturers from doing the same thing Lexmark does? When things like the DMCA are created, it can upset the free market. A free market requires free choice if it is to weed out the 'bad' products from the 'good.'

  2. Completely Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time I checked there was no monopoly in the printer market. If Lexmark wants to keep it's design proprietary so be it. If Joe Consumer doesn't like it, buy another brand.

    1. Re:Completely Legal by rot26 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a novel way to look at it. Ignore one crime as long as other people are abiding by the law? Maybe you could suggest that GM makes it so their cars look for RFI chips in the OEM tires so that it won't start if you don't buy them from a dealer.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    2. Re:Completely Legal by Deton8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that Joe Consumer visiting his local PC Slut retailer has no way to know what artificial restrictions Lexmark has placed on the ink refills, nor if it lies about when the cartridges are empty, nor if it deliberately rejects non-Lexmark cartridges. There certainly isn't any disclosure on the packaging. Now, I agree with the Libertarian thrust of your comments, but as long as we have consumer protection laws which require disclosure of material facts on the packaging, this ought to be fairly applied across the board. As an exercise for the reader, please propose suggested packaging disclosures for popular PC products such as Windows XP and Office...

    3. Re:Completely Legal by t0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Its not about being a monopoly, its about squelching competition. The business model is currently 1) create junky printer, sell for cheap. 2) make tons of profit on the proprietary ink cartridges

      Now you have companies fighting to protect #2, at the expense of the customer. In a free market, if someone can do something better or cheaper (or both), they should be able to win out. But instead, companies are being allowed to litigate away any competition rather than allow market forces to decide.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  3. Ink prices... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well there is competition between printer manufacturers, and I imagine that if ink was priced at the cost of production tomorrow (considering perfect competition) then their printer prices would go up. Sure it's expensive, but look at the printers...you can buy a printer that would have cost $1000 ten years ago for $80 now. Anyway, since when has the law cared anything about competition? I mean, if it did, then the lawsuits against file sharers would be tossed out instantly. File sharing is the only other means of distribution for most of these songs...

  4. About time! by Kyouryuu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    All printer manufacturers do this, especially those that try to reel consumers in with a cheap printer and charge a fortune for the refills.

    The height of absurdity to me is the infamous HP example. On more than one occasion, I've walked into a store and learned that replacing my HP printer altogether was cheaper than buying ink cartridge refills. Compare, $25 for a B&W cartridge + $35 for a color cartridge = $60 total. Cost of that HP DeskJet on sale at Office Depot? $50, and you get an entirely new printer!

    No, this is completely wrong. Standards must be developed. Good, compatible knock-offs must be designed. While there is competition for printers themselves, there is no competition for the ink cartridges. Once a company ropes a customer into their printer, they'll milk them for all its worth.

  5. Warning labels by slusich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They should be required to label these printers. Otherwise people will continue to buy them without realizing that they will never be able to buy a third party cartrige.

    --

    DeviantArt Page

    NSFW
  6. The crux of the Western economy by doublem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My guess is that the average user is lazy, and would rather spend twice as much on the ink instead of being bothered to educate themselves.

    Thank you very much. You just revealed the deep, dark secret of the Western Economy. All the work "they" have done to keep it secret and you went and blew the cover.

    Most people are dumb, and want to stay dumb. If you make it easy for them to stay dumb, they will pay you money for it.

    This has the benefit of making sure they never have enough money to move out of the middle class.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:The crux of the Western economy by srussell · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Most people are dumb, and want to stay dumb. If you make it easy for them to stay dumb, they will pay you money for it.

      I agree with you. Really, I do. I had a friend who was fond of adding the addendum that, if you assume that the average person is dumb, then it is implied that about 50% of them are even more stupid than that.

      However: do you know how to repair your car? How about the electrical wiring in your house? Your plumbing? Garbage disposal or washing machine? How about the central air, or the oil heater? If you do, then you're a better woman/man than I. If you don't then you are, by your own logic, dumb. You're paying someone else what are most probably obscene prices to fix something that you could easily fix yourself, if you simply weren't too lazy to go figure it out. A lot of these things aren't rocket science.

      That's me in a nutshell. Some things, I have enough interest in to invest the time to do research and make sure I have enough information to make an informed decision. For everything else, I choose that which is most convenient (within reason). I use telephones a lot, but I'd honestly rather spend the few hours it would take to research a new phone purchase doing something -- almost anything else. Heck, I paid someone to paint my house one summer, and I've painted houses before.

      However, this, in itself, is not sufficient to prove the theory that people are dumb, or even lazy. Myself, I rely on empirical evidence for proof of that.

  7. Re:The razor, razorblade model by Xzzy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > However, to make it happen, all manufacturers will
    > have to charge more for printers and less for
    > cartridges. If even one player sticks with the old
    > model, that player will see all the gains.

    Unfortunatley, that's not how the US economy works. The only way to fix this sort problem is to let things get so bad that the companies involved go bankrupt, letting better run companies take thier place.

    Which, incidentialy, is why Lexmark is doing this stunt, to prevent going bankrupt. The profit margin has been cut so low by underselling printers that they can't afford to let people use generic brand cartridges. Even if the population that knows generic brands even exist is one or two percent of the total, that's a significant amount of money the company will lose.

    I think the "reform" will eventually happen naturally, the business model works well for cheap stuff like razorblades but for more expensive items the system is flawed.

    It could be hastened by government regulation, but I'm not sure getting the government involved is neccessarily a good idea.

  8. It seems to me.. by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That this would just make people buy those blasted ink-refill kits a lot more often than buying a generic cart...

    What's next, prosecuting with the DMCA for sticking a needle into the cart.. "Circumvention"

    Lexmark Exec: We need titanium casings

    Manufacturer: No problem, anything else?

    Lexmark Exec: How about special paper with DRM on it that the printer recognizes and only prints to?

    Manufacturer: Done

    --
    Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean