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.
...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.
"Colour HP Cartridge costs £29
This works out at £1.70 per millilitre
1985 Dom Perignon costs 23p per millilitre "
-"We will have 1 bottle of HP Blue 2003 please"
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
I used to work for a Printer supplies wholesaler and we had a supplier called MultiLaser that would Chip the Lexmark cartridges to be able to recycle them. Lexmark also had this prebate program where you would get a rebate if you agreed not to sell to recyclers.
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.
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...
Remember Nintendo vs. Namco? Nintendo sued Namco for putting their copyrighted data sequence into their games so that they would work in the NES. Nintendo won the lawsuit, and this was years before the DMCA came out.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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.
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
NSFWThere are so many players in the inkjet printer space that they are sometimes shooting themselves in the foot by going with this model. No manufacturer can offer printers at cost now because nobody would pay $250 for an inkjet. But at the same time, they lose money like crazy on certain types of buyers. Business travelers often buy a cheap printer at their destination rather than pack one. Consumers often get a new printer with each new computer they buy because the added cost in negligible. There are so many used printers out there, that they often cannot be given away.
The industry itself would benifit from reform in this area. 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.
I have avoided owning an inkjet because of the unreasonable consumables costs. I am glad that the EU will be investigating the cartel of printer manufacturers for illegal price fixing.
If I were to purchase an inkjet, which model can be easily and cheaply refilled, and carries a durable printhead?
I'd like to buy the ink by the liter, and I'd like the color match of the ink to be reasonably close to the OEM cartriges.
Also, wasn't Dell going to enter this market and cut the price of the consumables?
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!
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
It would seem that the market would *love* a printer that would use generic commodity ink. Make a few bucks on the printer and let the rest of the industry battle out the ink pricing.
A while ago, I modified an Epson to use large generic ink from a bottle (500mL each color). The printer dies before the ink ever ran out. Perhaps someone could manufacture a disposable printer? Just fill it with a crazy supply of ink and lock that bad boy up.
This $50/cartridge thing has to stop sooner or later. Some manufacturer will realize that consumers will *pay* for a quality piece that doesn't institute the Gillete sales model.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
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.
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
I recently replaced an Epson 800 with a Canon i850, and have been very pleased with it. Unlike Epson et all, which use chips or drivers to tell you/guess where the ink level is, Canon printers (possibly uniquely? i don't know) actually have a prism in the bottom of each cartridge, and shine a light through this. depending on whether this is covered with ink or not, from the refraction changes it can deduce how much ink is in there. thus it's actially *looking*, which seems to be the right way to do things... Anyway, i bought a big pack of ink and when they run out i'll be squirting more in with a syringe.. i've done it on someone else's printer and they never complained so i guess it worked :)
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
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
According to ThisIsLondon, Ink for home printers are 7 times more expensive than vintage champagne.
They also claim that ignoring low ink warnings can double the life of ink cartridges. I wish I could ignore the warnings, as my Lexmark printer forbids me to print once 75% of ink is gone!
Those greedy pigs!
/usr/bin/complain >
Dell's inkjets are just rebadged Lexmarks.
Both HP and Lexmark cartridges are so expensive, in part, because the print head and some of it's intelligence is built into the cartridge.
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.)
Computer & Communications Industry Association also filed an amicus brief in this case both at the district level and now at the appealate level arguing that this is the exact type of activity allowed under DMCA's exceptions and that SCC is not violating the DMCA. Press release can be found here.