North Carolina Fights Back Against Lexmark

ngrier writes "Seems that at least some aren't sitting idly by, while printer manufacturers try to assert total control. The North Carolina legislature just approved a measure which guarantees the consumer's right to refill ink cartridges. For history of the Lexmark DMCA-related story, involving the company placing copyright-protected code in their printer cartridges in order to prevent competitors from producing compatible cartridges, there are previous Slashdot posts about it here(1), here(2), and here(3)."

Comments

I like this

[l810c]

It's nice to see some common sense come out of a legislature. I like Rep. Joe Hackney's analogy:

I think if Ford Motor Company tried to completely control the aftermarket by trying to control the tire you put on your car by some device, I think this Legislature would act.

There are many areas of the market place that this should be applied.

The price of printers may go up, but we will still have Choice when it comes to ink. Ink is by far the higher cost in the long run.

Re:I like this

[(54)T-Dub]

Or you could just not buy a lexmark printer. Let the market descide, don't legislate to death.

On a side note someone gave me a lexmark printer. Stupid thing only works 1/2 the time for no appearent reason.

Re:I like this

[dotgod]

Ink is by far the higher cost in the long run.

Very true...my Lexmark z23 cost me about $35...which is also the price for a new black ink cartridge.

Re:I like this

[captainclever]

Quite simple, when your Lexmark printer runs out of Ink, throw it in the bin.

Never ever buy from Lexmark again, and encourage others to follow suit.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>"let the market decide"

don't you mean "let sheep decide"

Re:I like this

[HBI]

That only works until every vendor does the same thing, which they are well on the way to doing.

That free market stuff is only good in a carefully regulated environment. Laissez faire capitalism was successfully debunked in 1929, and many times since then - think Microsoft.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is take it or leave it the only option in a free market? What is so wrong with wanting to be able to buy something and do whatever the hell you want with it? Absent corporate welfare laws like the DMCA, Lexmark will spend money developing more and more complicated technological lockouts while companies like Static Control will profit by selling workarounds. Eventually Lexmark will realize that it is wasting its time and put the effort into making higher quality products that people are willing to pay a little extra for. That is a free market.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stupid thing only works 1/2 the time for no appearent reason"

Wow... you must have gotten a good one!

Long live EPSON!

Re:I like this

[BrookHarty]

Or you could just not buy a lexmark printer. Let the market descide, don't legislate to death.

Sometimes the public doesnt know about the dangers or mistakes of buying a product. The state needs from time to time, step in and regulate the market place. For the people and all that jazz..
-
Corporations steal its copyright infringment, people steal its called piracy.

Re:I like this

[nomadic]

Or you could just not buy a lexmark printer. Let the market descide, don't legislate to death.

Yeah, worked so well in curtailing Microsoft's behavior...

Re:I like this

[Joey7F]

The market is deciding! It decided that it wants Lexmarks at an unbelievably cheap price and it wants others to supply the ink at a fair rate. Lexmark is USING legislation (dmca) to make generic refills die a quick death.

--Joey

Re:I like this

[EvanED]

I like this idea. I am also in support of the repeal of lemon laws. Consumers can pick cars that are safe, and if they want to get one that isn't, that's their choice. Related, all other laws that aim to protect the consumer from corporations are needless and should be repealed.

Re:I like this

[ArsonSmith]

That free market stuff is only good in a carefully regulated environment.

That's just a funny sentance...

Re:I like this

[filledwithloathing]

Very true...my Lexmark z23 cost me about $35...which is also the price for a new black ink cartridge.

Then next time you run out of ink, just buy a new Lexmark z23. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. I bet they haven't figured that into their "Sell printers near/below cost and then jack up prices on proprietary ink cartridges" formula.

Re:I like this

[EnderWiggnz]

asshole, lemon laws are not about safety, they're about returning a new car that is f'ing BROKEN.

Re:I like this

[Edward Teach]

Don't forget to fill it with sticky goo before putting it in the garbage bin. Don't want any of them recycled.

Re:I like this

[CrazyGringo]

I think it'd be more like the Ford Motor Company trying to control the type of air you put on your car.

Re:I like this

[joshsisk]

The only reason legislation like this is needed is because of the DMCA. Without THAT, aftermarket companies could simply make cheaper cartridges.

Re:I like this

[Planesdragon]

Consumers can pick cars that are safe, and if they want to get one that isn't, that's their choice.

You've obviously never bought a car.

Lemon laws serve as a check on dealer shenanigans. Especially with used cars, the threat of the state forcing the dealer to pay for the car's repairs is sometimes the only thing keeping the dealer from selling cars that really shouldn't be on the road.

However, your theory of removing all laws that protect consumers from corporations sounds like a great one. I can't wait to live in a world where I must sign a contract to even look at a car, I have to take the dealer's word on how efficient it is for gas mileage, and I just have to rely on a consumer group that can't summon cars for review to tell me if a car has serious safety hazards or not.

The free market is amazingly efficient at resource allocation--and that's about it. It's horrible at keeping a reasonable balance of weath, atrocious at preserving accuracy, and simply impotent when it comes to protecting participants in the market from the worst scams therin.

Capitalism without some government oversight is mob rule--and I think I'd be better served by a tyranny than the unthinking mob.

Re:I like this

[EvanED]

Sarcasm kind of goes missing in print...

Re:I like this

[Melibeus]

I threw my Lexmark in the bin after the ink ran out when I found there were no Linux drivers for it except a partially working (B&W only)reverse engineered one. Nor do Lexmark seem to care much. See their scorecard here. "Useless"

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes. The proof that laissez faire capitalism doesn't work is . . . a depression caused by the Frederal Reserve Bank and Bank of England mis-manipulation of the money supply to maintain artificially low interest rates in 1926-1930, taxes raised to pay off national debts (especially in France and Germany) left over from World War I, and an international move away from free trade towards protectionist/mercantilist economics.

Yep, that is convincing. A depression caused by the actions of governments proves laissez faire capitalism doesn't work, because it proves government cannot be trusted to not stick its hand in in an effort to "improve" things.

Re:I like this

[len_harms]

Thats like what? 3 sheets of paper? With the half full cart that came with it in the first place?

Re:I like this

[PD]

I've done better. I've never bought from Lexmark, period. And, I've never bought an ink-jet printer. Don't know which ones will cause me these kinds of trouble, and I don't want to spend the time to look it up. I'll just keep using my Samsung laser printer.

Re:I like this

[Dr. Photo]

That free market stuff is only good in a carefully regulated environment. Laissez faire capitalism was successfully debunked in 1929, and many times since then - think Microsoft.

Under lassiez-faire capitalism, there would be no legal mechanisms to artificially prevent you from say, modifying your printer cartridges, or making and distributing as many copies of whatever piece of software or media you wish. Nor would you be bound by unsigned and un-viewed "agreements" buried at the bottom of a box.

So this legislation seeks to restore a semblance of a "free market", as a counterbalance to the excesses of the DMCA, which really tampers with the market.

Re:I like this

[Moofie]

If the capitalists believed in laissez-faire, they would not have gone shopping in Washington for the DMCA.

As long as corporations are given preferential tax and liability treatment, they should be subject to oversight and scrutiny. This is just and right.

I just wish it happened sometimes.

Re:I like this

[NanoGator]

"Or you could just not buy a lexmark printer. Let the market descide, don't legislate to death."

The big problem with this argument is that corps are getting bigger and bigger. There's gotta be restraints on them here and there to prevent them from stifling progress in any given area of development.

I do half-agree with you, though. Here's the thing: If everybody does what Lexmark's been doing, what's to stop people from just buying laser printers? If something desperately needs to be in color, either ppl will use digital means (e-mail, pocket/tabletPCs, etc) or they'll run down to Kinko's. I personally have already decided on the Kinko's bit. Sure, per page the color copies/prints might be expensive, but I'd have to buy a lot of them to equal one cartridge of ink.

If the market goes to one extreme, somebody'll come along and create equlibrium. So long as the mega-corps can't squash them, then things should work out. Problem is, keeping the mega-corps under control. In this case, legislation could potentially be the answer.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Prices are coming down. Some years ago, when lightening fried my Canon LBP-8, I paid $1200 for a Lexmark Optra S 1650 printer. Today, I can get equvalent quality and features and speed (I was looking for speed, 16 PPM)
for $300 or so. Samsung, OKI, Brother, Minolta, all are good, cheap and don't screw me around on cartridges.
I can pay a bit more for more features if need be, duplex printing, network builtin, double paper trays.
I think HP, Dell and Lexmark are making a bad
business decision.

I'll happily use any machine that works, does decent
with envelopes and doesn't play these games with consumables. I'll boycott those that jack with consumers.
If they claim its to protect me from substandard toners and inks, OK, then supply me with superior ink and toner. Not anti-refill chips.

Re:I like this

[Ashen]

I got sick of buying an new inkjet printer every year so I invested in a Samsung laser from Best Buy. It's linux compatible and so far it's worked perfectly (besides scaring the shit out of the cats when they step on the 'reprint' button), but we'll see in a year or two if it's still working.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Capitalists" and corporations don't have to believe in laissez-faire. They try and get priveleges from the government because they can.

Libertarians do because they believe it's in the overall best interest of everyone.

Corporations shouldn't be given special priveleges and tax/liability treatment. Just as individuals shouldn't be able to use the government to try and control the market with price controls, rent controls, wage controls, etc.

THAT is just and right.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe people should be responsible and actually do some research before they buy one.

"Wahhh I can't be responsible for the decisions I make or researching anything before I make those decisions!!! I need the government to do it for me! Wahh!"

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Market? Think M$lime ?? You're kidding, right? That's a gov'mnt sponsored monioply, pad're . What are you thinking?

Re:I like this

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

think if Ford Motor Company tried to completely control the aftermarket by trying to control the tire you put on your car by some device, I think this Legislature would act.

Actually, I think this started to happen in the past. Ever heard of the Magnuson/Moss Warranty Act?

Neither did I, until I started putting aftermarket stuff on my truck and the Dodge dealer started getting pissy. In a nutshell, it says that no manufacturer can deny and warranty claim or make any warrany dependont on the use of any aftermarket parts, UNLESS that part can be proven to have caused the damage.

The same should apply to any other sane industry, of which computers does seem [sane] anymore.

We don't tolerate those practices anywhere else, except for computers/software. Nice to see someone pitching an official bitch about it.

Re:I like this

[AvitarX]

The real problem with true Capitalism is that people are too cheap, and easy to deceive.

People will not pay full price for a printer on the promise of cheaper ink. That has been tried and failed in the late 90's (cannon I think).

Poor labor practices and quality control are not expensive enough in a totally free market. The economy crash may not have been the result of hands off capitalism, but other things happening in that era were, and it was not good.

Also, doesn't the DMCA allow compatability cracking? I mean how more blatently for compatability can you get, then making ink replacements.

Re:I like this

[WCMI92]

"The big problem with this argument is that corps are getting bigger and bigger. There's gotta be restraints on them here and there to prevent them from stifling progress in any given area of development."

If you allow Lexmark, HP, et all to monopolize ink replacements, you can't then NOT allow Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, etc, to not sell cars for $100 that require "fuel tank" replacments (chipped, so you have to buy the factory original and TRUST them to tell you that it's empty) for $100 or more each.

Law is supposed to apply universally, to everyone (else it's unjust).

How can the law allow the printer industry to do it, but not the automobile industry?

Re:I like this

[Moofie]

Sure they do. Any time somebody talks about actually enforcing trade regulations, all the corpocrats start screaming about how cool "free markets" are, even though they would be totally incapable of competing in a true free market.

I am not certain that a true free market is a virtue or not. It would certainly be very hard on the people at the bottom end of the economic food chain when we eliminated the minimum wage. Lots of those people are already depending on a government stipend to put food in front of their kids.

Don't know quite how to fix it, but I'm pretty sure the solution doesn't include protectionist legislation for the richest companies on the planet.

Re:I like this

[jrockway]

Salvage it for parts. There must be something good in there.

And if $35 buys a black ink cartridge, and $35 buys a color ink cartridge, a black ink cartridge, AND a printer, electronic parts now have a negative cost when salvaged from a lexmark printer. Radio Shack should sue :)

Re:I like this

[dorsey]

The z23 only comes with a black cartridge. If you want color it doubles the price.

Re:I like this

[ces]

I've done better. I've never bought from Lexmark, period. And, I've never bought an ink-jet printer. Don't know which ones will cause me these kinds of trouble, and I don't want to spend the time to look it up. I'll just keep using my Samsung laser printer.

If you do photo or graphic arts work laser printers aren't really suitable as it is a bitch to color match properly.

The Epson's are fairly popular among digital photographers. They seem to be fairly solid and don't need tp be replaced constantly. While the newer Epson's do have chipped cartrages the refil and aftermarket vendors have workarounds.

The biggest reason for me to get an Epson inkjet was the availiblity of archival, quadtone, and specialty inks. Its great to be able to do prints with the same lifetime as an actual photographic print and to be able to do B&W prints that look like they were done in a darkroom.

As for laser printers I really haven't seen a good reason to buy anything other than an HP. They are rock solid, last forever, and toner cartrages are fairly cheap and availible even for the oldest models.

Re:I like this

[weierstrass]

In a nutshell, it says that no manufacturer can deny and warranty claim or make any warrany dependont on the use of any aftermarket parts, UNLESS that part can be proven to have caused the damage.

Does this also apply to Linux-enabling modchips in the X-box?

Re:I like this

[Reziac]

And no fair designing that Dodge truck so aftermarket parts WILL cause damage, or WILL cause it to stop running.

[Wasn't there some printer that would by-design cease working when presented with a refilled cart?]

As to cost, if say you had to buy Dodge tires or your truck wouldn't start -- on a parallel with printers and ink, the pricing would be something like: Truck: $1000. Tires: $1000 each -- and they'd only last 5000 miles.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

It could also be argued that the use of DMCA-style legislation to prevent free market competition i.e. to restrict after-market ink sales, is in fact a mercantilist strategy. Companies are using legally granted exclusivities in order to maintain a monopoly in a particular market. In this case, Lexmark is endeavouring to use the DMCA to create a monopoly on ink consumed by Lexmark printers.

And before anyone goes off - no this is not like saying Apple has a monopoly on Apples - Lexmark printers and consumables are separate commodities.

On the issue of mercantilism - the last major incidence of mercantilism occured at around the same time the industrial revolution started to take off. Now the knowledge economy is taking off and we see history repeating itself. So where's Adam Smith when you need him?

Re:I like this

[Anonvmous Coward]

"How can the law allow the printer industry to do it, but not the automobile industry?"

Because ink is easier to handle than gas?

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians do because they believe it's in the overall best interest of everyone.

Well thats O.K, some people believe in fairies and unicorns, too.

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes thats right. Before you go to the supermarket and purchase a chicken, you should do a full background check on the conditions in which it was slaughtered, the company which slaughtered it, the farm it came from and the safety of the various drugs which it may or may not have been fed during its lifetime. Ideally you should use mutliple sources and collate and weigh each of them to provide a balanced view. If you don't understand the data, you should consider taking night classes in chemistry, biology, pharmacology and toxicology.

Then you can buy that chicken in the full knowlege that it will be safe to eat.

Re:I like this

[ajs318]

Those who speak loudest for free trade are forgetting that fair trade is a much more important concept.

What would be much better would be for there to be state-owned computer hardware companies, mandated to publish full specifications for their products; and these published specifications would automatically assume the status of National or International Standards. This would allow private companies to manufacture interoperable products or even outright clones, and there would be a recognised standard for people to insist on compliance with. Result, people would be less keen on buying non-standards-compliant hardware.

I know I would love to buy a printer with a Kite Mark, if I could be sure that that Kite Mark meant not only that I was buying a piece of hardware that had been tested to certain impartial standards {including the fact that anyone could make ink cartridges to fit it}, but that I would also have effectively full access to the programmer's manual. And who would buy closed-source software without a Kite Mark, if closed-source software to do the same job was available with a Kite Mark? {Open source software would be effectively exempt from approvals requirements, as compliance could be verified by examining the source code and achieved if necessary by modifying the source code.}

Of course, there would have to be a mechanism for extending the standards to prevent stagnation, and this should never favour any request for an extension over another solely on the grounds of who is making it. The need to avoid stagnation should also be balanced carefully against the need to avoid enforced incompatibility.

Eventually, in some kinds of economies, state-owned manufacturers may be outdone by the private sector. But the standards-setting role is paramount. The lack of proper standards and approvals procedures, and effective policing thereof, may benefit greedy corporations in the short term; but it is costing us all in the long term.

Re:I like this

[ajs318]

They have. When you buy a new printer, there is only enough ink in the cartridge to print a few pages - basically, it's only there to stop the printing head from drying out. It might be only 1/4 the normal amount you would find in a brand new cartridge.

Re:I like this

[sploxx]

Don't want to troll, but for me it is very obvious that laissez faire capitalism doesn't work. At least not for a long time.

Milton & Co. dream of a state which provides only border protection and eventually domestic protection of property.
So... the world should get a bit more anarchic because everyone gets more freedom and all will be happy. This sounds like Marx, the other way around, sorry.
Let's assume we live in such a world.
The anarchy would be unstable. Some people will try to suppress other people, it will (even if only sometimes) work, they will get power and it will probably evolve into a country with several landlord's having their own dictatorships.
You can believe in laissez faire if you are really believing that after you redistributed the wealth equally to all the people, they will behave like good ones and everything will stay in balance.
In balance. So you have to assume that there is a stable point. Hard to believe. Rather, you will end up, maybe a few hundreds years later, with people requesting a democracy, with a state, with a police, with healthcare etc.pp.
These civilisatory things were not forced on you by an evil government ruled by cynic leaders. They were "forced" on you by people some hundred years ago.
It seems to me that these "capitalist freedom fighters" often only value the freedom they get when they can do with their money what they want. But money means power. If you have much more money than others, you have much more power. Is that democratic?

Re:I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I must disagree. I've lived in North Carolina for most of my life and there is no such thing as common sense in the NC legislature. As others have pointed out, this is about money and political pull. (Oops, that's just another way of saying "money.") The fact that the politicians were pursuaded to do something we agree with doesn't mean they have common sense.

Re:I like this

[AlanS2002]

I bought a new printer about 9 months ago (Epson c41UX) for $AU 100 and I've already spent more on black ink alone than I did on the printer and I don't print much. Hopefully some other governments will follow suit and resolve this rediculas situation.

Re:I like this

[stomv]

The state doesn't have to own computer hardware companies for this to happen.

The state merely has to require that any hardware vendor that does business with the state adheres to this practice.

In fact, the state does do this, to some extent. Consider IPv6. Didn't look like it would ever go anywhere in the US, until the US military decided that it wanted to migrate to IPv6 eventually. Now, software and hardware vendors that want to land these huge contracts have to show they have a roadmap to get to full compliance with IPv6 standards by such-and-such a date, etc. This requirement for U.S. gov't will roll over to the private sector; after all, the work will already have been done for the U.S. military, so why not also sell it to others?

My point is simply that the U.S. doesn't have to own the companies, or even force them to change their ways. All the U.S. gov't has to do is only buy from the companies who follow trade practices that benefit all of American society -- such as ink refils, standards compliant, etc... for all or their products. The freer market will result in companies migrating over to better business practices; likely at the cost to consumers of slightly higher prices.

Re:I like this

[AlanS2002]

It's this simple those with power will try and take more and more, without end, if allowed to at the expense of all else. It's the same with wealth and that is the reason that laissez faire capitalism doesn't work.
You soon end up with a few having the most and the rest having bugger all, then you're talking revolution time and nobody wants that.

Re:I like this

[Agripa]

What you discribe sounds more like David Friedman then Milton Friedman but I have not read enough discussing Milton's specific views on anarcho-capatalism to be sure about him in this regard.

Ayn Rand made a similar argument for the instability of anarcho-capatalism. If you accept the instability then it would be an argument for libertarianism in favor of anarcho-capatalism which is what you are discribing. Iceland had a society that was very similar to David Friedman's discription of anarcho-capatalism between 930 AD and about 1212 AD.

It certainly is not an argument against the economic system of laissez faire capatalism that the libertarians advocate.

Re:I like this

[ajs318]

Point taken, the state doesn't have to own companies. But it does need for BSI or some other such equivalent body to publish specifications, and issue product marks to indicate compliance with the standards.

We've got the W3C Validation marks for web sites, but they aren't nearly as recognised as the BSI Kite Mark, and they are not policed.

A national or international approvals certificate for computer hardware {and possibly software} would be a good way to encourage standards compliance, which benefits all. And in some economies, establishing state-owned companies would be the best way to keep prices affordable for consumers.

Re:I like this

[jot445]

Eventually Lexmark will realize that it is wasting its time and put the effort into making higher quality products that people are willing to pay a little extra for.

In the meantime, the consumers get an ass-poking, the CEO of Lexmark gets a fat check for probing our nether regions, and even Static Control gets bucks out of the deal. Let's keep the dollars in the consumers's pockets and force companies who have no moral guidance (an oxymoron, I know) to act in the interest of society. Let's not wait on companies to figure out that it's in their best interest and profits to please the consumer. It takes too long, and the consumers will get screwed in the process.

Just my $/50...

Re:I like this

[awol]

That free market stuff is only good in a carefully regulated environment. Laissez faire capitalism was successfully debunked in 1929, and many times since then - think Microsoft.

That is complete bunk. Laissez faire is fine when there are no (few or small) externalities. 1929, very complex, shan't enter into here, but there where externalities a plenty. As for Microsoft ... puh-lease. Think IP, the biggest externality of them all.

Re:I like this

[PD]

Price. My Samsung cost me $500. It was the cheapest one I could find with a net server built in. I would have bought a used HP from Goodwill Computerworks here in Austin, but my wife wouldn't let me. I could have picked up a working Laserjet IV for less than $100.

Re:I like this

[ErikZ]

heh, "Stable Anarchy"

Re:I like this

[WNight]

Exactly, don't legislate. Don't let laws get in the way of people buying a product and OWNING it. You know, you pay your money, you have the right to do anything with the product... It's an old idea, but one that I think is still valid.

It's not like Lexmark is just making it hard to get replacement ink, they've done that forever. They're now using unjust laws like the DMCA to withhold ownership rights. Strike down the DMCA, let the market decide if Lexmark can succeed doing this.

Re:I like this

[WNight]

Canon is good. They use a seperate tank for every color (and one for black), even on their 6+1 ink photo printers. Their ink tanks are also just little plastic boxes with a sponge in them. If you want to buy 3rd-party ink you can get the really cheap stuff that you put in with a syringe.

They're also honest. Many people complain of printers "running out" of ink with a third of it still sloshing in the tank. My printer warns me it's getting low at that point but it doesn't stop printing until the tank is empty and the sponge is looking dry.

The ink is the primary reason I bought Canon. Refills for it were much cheaper than for other printers, much easier to DIY, and they didn't try to stop it. I'm quite happy with the quality too.

Re:I like this

[WNight]

In these days of companies suing review sites for negative reviews, that's not as easy as it sounds.

Then there's the fact that this violates every major libertarian ideal. If you buy something you <b>own</b> it. Buy Lexmark wants to sell things and still control them. They also want this state, which you are so fond of, to force people to go along with it.

If you got rid of the DMCA, I'd say the market should decide. But with the DMCA hurting consumers you <b>NEED</b> a law to help consumers or they'll get screwed.

Re:I like this

[WNight]

Yeah, democracy is so much worse than absolute totalitarian rule of the guy whose ancestors stole the most land.

Maybe pure libertarian ideals work in an Ayn Rand book, but try the real world sometime. People are cruel. Rich people with a ton of money and no laws to stop them have the power to be very cruel.

Re:I like this

[WNight]

Except that they sell printers with half-full tester tanks of ink. So you get maybe $10 worth of ink. (Well, $.35 worth, but a normal retail of $10...)

Just buy a Canon. They use seperate tanks for each color and they haven't tried to make them at all hard to refill. A syringe and a sticker is all that stands between you and a $25 bottle of 250ml of black ink, enough to last for the lifetime of the printer.

Re:I like this

[jejones]

As long as government has sufficient power to make it worth buying politicians, politicians will be bought. Want to get rid of that preferential treatment? Restrict the government to its proper functions.

Re:I like this

[Moofie]

Uh, good idea. I'll get right on it.

Re:I like this

[(54)T-Dub]

My only point is that it's lexmark's product. They can do whatever the hell they want to the thing as long as it doesn't harm society. Don't buy their stupid printers and they will stop putting the chips into the ink cartidges. Just look at the turboTax scandal earlier this year. Next year they won't be using that damn activation crap.

Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an employee of a company that manufacturers inkjet printers? Are you an inkjet owner? Have you been thinking of buying an inkjet printer? If so, listen up.

Now, don't get me wrong. Everyone owning their own printing press is an important leap for free speech, and thus democracy,
but there's one tidbit the printer manufacturers have neglected...

The loss leader model in the printing technology business is a failure.

Sure money is pouring in now, but sooner or later your customers will reel from the pain caused by you ramming their asses.
Let's face it-- previous inkjet owners would rather print at Kinkos than buy a new inkjet printer. If you put yourself in your customers' shoes, it's not hard to see why:

1. Ink cartridges are too expensive. Boy, are they too expensive!
2. The cartridges have a short shelf life before they dry up and jam the print heads.
3. Printing regularly (or otherwise wasting ink) is the only way to combat the ink drying problem.
4. Consumers are reluctant to print anything unless absolutely necessary thanks to the artificially high price of ink.
Thus, inkjet printers are rarely excercised enough to maintain them and rarely work right when they are needed.

Ink cartridges have a short shelf life and no printer manufacturer has been able to solve that problem. Because of that, Gillette's give-away-the-razor-sell-the-blades-at-a-primium model does not adapt well to the printing consumables industry. In
the meantime, raping consumers on ink is a business model that will soon die, because consumers will find that inkjet printers are just not worth it. Joe Sixpack will learn soon enough that the printer bundled "free" with his PC is nothing but a money pit.

Because printers are sold cheaply (presumably at a loss), it's not surprising that printer reliability has gone down the shitter. Manufacturers are cutting corners when producing printers. Inkjet printers today are made out of cheap plastic where metal should be used, resulting in a fragile product likely to jam paper.

Let's face it, until printer manufacturers change their business model, inkjet printers are just not worth the hassle.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[rfsayre]

When people figure this out, boy will Acme Ink Corp.. uh, I mean Hewlett Packard be in trouble.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[l810c]

Printers sure have gone downhill. Remember the old HP Laserjet(3,4) workhorses? Those things were stout. Even the new office printers are not the same quality they used to be.

Normally in the computer market, high end features trickle down into comsumer product features, I was hoping for a home printer that could hold a ream of paper and have separate trays for labels and envelopes and plug and play networking. Instead we have the mess that is the printer market today.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[mcp33p4n75]

I just inherited a Laserjet 3 for free! This thing is a beast! It's been around for 13 years and it's still going strong. Amazing! The only problem is that it only has 1MB of ram and the cartridges are extraordinarily expensive ($150 for a 13 year old 1MB ram cartridge, wtf?). As long as I only print in 150x150 resolution it's fine. It has officially replaced my Lexmark 1100 that had terrible linux support, expensive ink refills, and broken hardware. Props to the old school laserjets!

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[EvanED]

My dad has a 10+ year old LaserJet 4 that he replaced with a LJ 1200 for most uses only a couple months ago because it began to jam. He much prefers the old one for short documents that won't jam.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Valar]

Yeah, I still use my laserjet4 to run off my pirated^H^H^H^H^H^H^H project gutenberg ebooks. I've hade it for years, and I'm just about to replace the toner for the first time. They just don't make them like that anymore (and what is everyone's fascination with inkjet... give me more expensive but quality laser anyday).

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Victa]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with some of your post...

> 3. Printing regularly (or otherwise wasting ink) is the only way to combat the ink drying problem.
> 4. Consumers are reluctant to print anything unless absolutely necessary thanks to the artificially high price of ink.
> Thus, inkjet printers are rarely excercised enough to maintain them and rarely work right when they are needed.

BULLSHIT!!!

I have and Epson Stylus Colour 800. It is approximately 5 years old. I purchased it when I worked for an Epson service center. It barely gets used (maybe once 6 months), and I have NEVER had any problems with the ink drying out, if the printer is designed and used correctly ink drying in the head should NOT be a problem.

> Ink cartridges have a short shelf life and no printer manufacturer has been able to solve that problem.

BULLSHIT!!!

I have a BOX full of ink cartridges (genuine Epson) that I got at the same time as the printer, and just the other day I had to put a new black one in the printer, it worked fin, and it was OVER 2 YEARS OUT OF DATE!!!
Once again, if they are left sealed, and stored correctly there should be no issues.

On the subject of non-genuine and refilled ink cartridges... They DO FSCK PRINTERS!!! When I worked fixing these things EVERY printer that came in with non genuine or refilled cartridges had print quiality issues. Sometimes the customer was lucky and a set of genuine cartridges fixed the problem, but usually a new print head was required (several hundred $AU).
I have also seen many cases of non-genuine (and refilled) inks simply draining into the bottom of the printer overnight... Or coming out of the packet dry, whilst still IN DATE!!! Try explaining to a customer why the ink they bought thismorning, and put in an hour ago is empty out of the box...

Once upon a time I too thought non-genuine and refilled ink was OK... Then I spent a couple of years seeing the damage that these inks cause. And after that I will never use non genuine inks, nor would I perform warranty service on a printer with non genuine inks in it.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[nolife]

Remember the old HP Laserjet(3,4) workhorses?

Hey, watch what you are calling old, I still use a LJ4. ;)

I picked one up as a departing gift when I left my last job. Kind of like a "fire" sale but it was more like a layoff sale. It has a 100k sheet count and I've got over 5k sheets on the same 1/2 full off brand toner cart that it had when I got it. We have various 4-5's at my current job with almost a 500k sheet count and two 5si w/stackers with almost 1M if not over by now. When needed, the parts for these things are cheap and plentiful, as is the troubleshooting guides and online help.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Strag]

I still use my Laserjet IIID, the thing is a bloody workhorse and the cartridges last forever compared to what you'll get out of ink.
The only problem is you'll put your back out moving the thing.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[glitch!]

The only problem is that it only has 1MB of ram and the cartridges are extraordinarily expensive ($150 for a 13 year old 1MB ram cartridge, wtf?)

Is this $45 module what you are looking for? Here is a good deal on toner cartriges.

I just got a used Laserjet 4 for a song myself, and I am very happy with "old iron" :-)

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Pinball Wizard]

Price of new inkjet printer: $50

Price of two new inkjet cartriges, one color, one B&W $60-$75.

At these prices, I'm treating the printer itself as a disposable.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[nolife]

I'm glad to hear about your Stylus 800. I have noticed the same thing with the older printers. I still use my Stylus Color (circa 1995). Cartridges are huge and cheap, normally one cleaning cycle after sitting for a while is adequate. Ink last hundreds of sheets.

I also have an Epson C60. Not bad quality but unless I use it at least once every two weeks, I have to run the clean cycle over and over. I could not find a way to clean just the color or just the black if needed and if I take one of them out I can't run the cycle to clean the other one. A complete waste of ink everytime. Last time this happened, it was not used for about 4 months. I had to clean the heads at least 10 times to get the megenta to work and I used almost 1/2 the black in the process.

YMMV

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[SeanTobin]

Heh.. how about this. I have a HP laserjet IIP that has gone over 400,000 pages. The thing is a beast! Bought it in '87 with the 1meg memory upgrade. I love the fact that they set the internal page counter to max out at 100k. Not too many products these days that you can roll the odometers on anymore.

Try getting that from an inkjet :) Or even one of the newer hp lasers (which I still think are great printers... just not the beasts they once were)

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Dave2 Wickham]

I use an LJ IID - the damn thing is probably older than me ;)

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[SN74S181]

If you print in any kind of volume, a laser printer, based on dry toner, is far less expensive to operate than those smeary spray-jet printers.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck is 'DeathPenguin' and what posessed your mama to give you such a retarded name?

Or are you just as anonymous?

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[AyeRoxor!]

"what is everyone's fascination with inkjet... give me more expensive but quality laser anyday."

Quite true. If you don't print more photos and colorful deals than text, you would be MUCH better off with a laser brinter.

At work, several of our employees have their own Samsung ML-1210. They've really been great. Not a single problem, toner lasts a long time. Got em for around $150 cuz they were being discontinued. If their replacement, the 1430 is like the 1210, go for it. And yes, after these days of crappy lego $30 Lexmarks, a $170 printer may not look familiar any more. But it's really worth it. No more zzzt-zzzt-zzzt-zzzt over and over again to print a page. It's whirrrrr and it's done. 15 pages a minute, too. Kicks your lexmark's ass. Cleaner, higher contrast, won't smudge of it gets a drop of water on it. It's better all around.

Think about it.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[AyeRoxor!]

CRAP. That 1430 link is here.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Moofie]

I only take exception with one thing in your post.

Lexmark printers have NOTHING in common with LEGO. The only toy I've never been able to break, in my LIFE, are LEGO bricks. They're made of some kind of unobtainium stuff. Now, I've killed several models I've built from LEGO, but the bricks are tougher than anything.

I'm convinced that there's a layer of LEGO in the Chobham armor on M1 tanks.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[AyeRoxor!]

"Lexmark printers have NOTHING in common with LEGO."

I figured I might get a response from that. My implicatino was thus: Remember what happened to your lego creations when they fell maybe 6 inches? Shatter. That's how lexmarks feel to me.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[WCMI92]

"Because printers are sold cheaply (presumably at a loss), it's not surprising that printer reliability has gone down the shitter. Manufacturers are cutting corners when producing printers. Inkjet printers today are made out of cheap plastic where metal should be used, resulting in a fragile product likely to jam paper"

That is why I hung on to my old HP 672C for 7 years. Until it died.

Cheap ink (refurb carts), and it was built like a tank.

I now have a salvaged Okidata Okipage 4 LED-laser printer (given to me, as it was going to be junked), and haven't had my first toner go out yet (over a year).

The crisp B/W of that printer is completely sufficent for my printing needs, and I've not even considered buying a new color ink jet.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy posts this exact same thing every time there's a discussion about printers. You'd think he'd start posting on an account for the karma.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[AyeRoxor!]

"My implicatino was thus: "

And, in a bizarre coincidence, it was also my implication.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't make 'em like they used to.
No inkjet made recently can boast clean-running nozzles and long cartridge shelf life. The cartridges are now specifically built to waste ink and/or expire.
Lexmark is the worst of them all for this.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[fiontan]

Jumping into this a bit late, but what the hey...

I was hoping for a home printer that could hold a ream of paper and have separate trays for labels and envelopes and plug and play networking.

One of my best purchases ever was a second hand LJ 4M Plus for AU$150 (US$80?). Fast printing, great quality, and plugs directly into the network without requiring a host computer, and drivers were already installed in Win2k... The hardest part of installation was setting up the printer's IP and Gateway addresses, since it didn't support DHCP, but now it runs beautifully!

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[DeathPenguin]

If you want my identity, fire off an e-mail to the address in my profile and show me you mean business. I've sent complaints to companies not unlike Lexmark before (Most of which get no reply from an actual human), I have no problem making my voice heard with them.

I suggest you anonymous cowards do the same thing if you ever want anyone to pay attention to you. Griping on Slashdot doesn't mean much to these guys, so take a pro-active stance and send a complaint directly to 'em.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[red floyd]

My father-in-law had an original LJII that survived the Northridge earthquake (about 2 miles from Ground Zero). It fell off the table and hit the floor. We picked it up, reconnected everything, and it worked, no problem. Try that with any modern laser printer.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[IICV]

Hah! That shows how well you built legos! Mine were often thrown against walls and lived! Of course, they were ugly sons of bitches, but they were indestructible to anything except prying them apart block by block.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[ces]

I also have an Epson C60. Not bad quality but unless I use it at least once every two weeks, I have to run the clean cycle over and over. I could not find a way to clean just the color or just the black if needed and if I take one of them out I can't run the cycle to clean the other one. A complete waste of ink everytime. Last time this happened, it was not used for about 4 months. I had to clean the heads at least 10 times to get the megenta to work and I used almost 1/2 the black in the process.

The higher end Epsons have much less problems with this.

But yes the dirt cheap inkjets from everyone seem to be built to self-destruct and chew ink.

Epson and possibly HP have just gone downhill the least. With both of these brands you can also get most of the quality of their older printers by buying one of the over $300 models.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Anonymous Coward]

On the subject of non-genuine and refilled ink cartridges... They DO FSCK PRINTERS!!! When I worked fixing these things EVERY printer that came in with non genuine or refilled cartridges had print quiality issues. Sometimes the customer was lucky and a set of genuine cartridges fixed the problem, but usually a new print head was required (several hundred $AU).

Maybe, just maybe, this is because the ink cartriges have not been designed to be easily refillable? If printer manufacturers got a clue, they'd have cartriges that could be easily refilled via. a sealable valve, which would ensure that you wouldn't get ink leaking all over the place.

As for replacing the heads, sensible design dictatates that the head should be part of the cartrige (Ohh, like say, HP carts). If the ink drys or damage to the head occurs, no problem, just replace the cart. I have used nothing but refilled carts in my HP Deskjet and I have never, ever, once, had a problem with them.

As for the actual quality of the ink, thats an issue across different printer manufacters anyway, why should it be a bigger issue for replacement carts? If you buy crappy ink and the quality is crap, don't buy it again!

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Victa]

The Stylus COLOUR 800 is circa 2000. It is a different beast to the Stylus 800, which is black only, also not to be confused with a Stylus 820, or a Stylus Colour 820, neither of which is even usefull as a paperweight.

Having to clean both "heads" at once always used to be a problem with the "low end" printers, as they only have ONE head cleaning unit, wheras the higher end printers have TWO head cleaning units, one for colour and one for black.

I have not had any experience with the C60, but if the ink in the head is drying check the head capping mechanism, a square (or rectangular) sorta suction cup looking device (probably with a small piece of foam in the middle of it). This is the part that performs the head cleaning, but which also SHOULD seal the head when it is parked (ie printer is idle or off). If this part is covered with gunk or debris (bits of paper etc), or if the rubber seal is damaged, then it will not seal the head properly when the printer is not in use, and will also lead to poor head cleaning performance. Try cleaning it with a little Metho. on a clean cloth, but beware it is a MESSY operation. Also check the operation of the unit as I have seen the springs jump out of them, so they do not come up to mmet the print head correctly.

Hope this is of some use to you (or someone!).

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[VCAGuy]

Even the newer LaserJets are nice (save the 5L/6L/1100/1000/1200 series--those things are the inkjets of the laser world when it comes to paper handling!) I have three laserjets: a 2100TN on my desk (which has racked up almost 30,000 pages in three short years), a 4MV that I use for wide-format proofs (384,000 pages) and a newer Color LaserJet 4550 with 8,000 pages on it--the only thing I've ever had to change was toner and one fuser (the 4MV's). Most of my friends think I'm nuts--but I don't have to think twice before comitting something to paper...and that it a real boon to my productivity.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we remember the LJ-4? Hey, we're still using them! Bought them second-hand, cheap, from a large corporation's surplus dept., when their IT outsourcing contractor decided to "upgrade" and "standardize" all the company's printers. A big thank you to all the PHB's involved--you're a life saver for small businesses on a budget!

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[thomn8r]

Remember the old HP Laserjet(3,4) workhorses? Those things were stout.

The III's and 4's were the VW bugs of the printer world. The new ones are like the "New Beetle": pretty, with lots of "ooh ahhh" features, but they won't last as long or perform as well over the long haul.

Re:Open Letter to Inkjet Printer Manufacturers

[AyeRoxor!]

"Hah! That shows how well you built legos! Mine were often thrown against walls and lived! Of course, they were ugly sons of bitches"

Many of mine were intricate machines with motors and rubber-bands and the Technics kits. Sure, you can build an indestructable brick, but even with legos, I was programming :) I was often making machines that did things, or working gearboxes, etc.

Any effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well consumers have that right already - they are perfectly free to refill their cartridges; of course, it doesn't do them any good, because the chip ignores the new ink. Is this a ban on putting the chips in?

So state law...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Supercedes federal copyright law in North Carolina?

I doubt it, although Lexmark would be a fool to push it.

Re:So state law...

[Gothmolly]

The Carolina's (and the Southern part of the US in general) tend to ignore Federal law in preference to State Law. Remember the Civil War in 1861? The South has always thought that the Federal Gov't should leave them alone.

Now, THIS post is +1, Insightful.

Re:So state law...

[Talking Goat]

Sorry for the OT post, but nice Rusted Root sig.

Re:So state law...

[Peyna]

The constitution says: The Congress shall have power to . . . promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

I fail to see how preventing others from making ink cartridges promotes the progress of science and useful arts, therefore this should not fall under federal copyright law.

Re:So state law...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a point since it seems your new here. Saying your own post is Insightful, Funny, or Interesting is about the lamest thing you could do on Slashdot. If the mods think your post has merit it will get modded up. No need to pat yourself on the back for all to see.

p.s.

If your really hard up at least post as an A.C. in reply saying it should be modded up, again doing it yourself is bad form.

Re:So state law...

[jazman_777]

The Carolina's (and the Southern part of the US in general) tend to ignore Federal law in preference to State Law. Remember the Civil War in 1861? The South has always thought that the Federal Gov't should leave them alone.

The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Re:So state law...

[squiggleslash]

This isn't superceding federal copyright law. It's an unrelated law to do with consumer protection. Lexmark has no more right to claim federal copyright law overrules it on the grounds it happens to be using a form of ultraproprietry cartridge protected by the DMCA than it does that it sends the printers across the state using the US Postal Service.

The two laws are not in conflict here. Lexmark can sue people for refilling its cartridges, only it's also open to legal action for making them closed in the first place.

Re:So state law...

[Gothmolly]

Neither do the US-Government backed pieces of paper in your pocket create wealth. You will, at some point in your life, learn the difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip.

Re:So state law...

[jchernia]

I don't think North Carolina law supercedes, but this is a good way for someone to challenge the seemingly unlimited scope of DMCA.

IANAL, but copyright seems to be a pretense for what they want to do, which is have a monopoly on the aftermarket. I believe there was an earlier story about how this was banned in the autoparts industry via anti-trust law.

As a side note, the "printer as loss leader" model seems to have come about because Wall Street likes the "razor and razor blade" model so much. However, as a many have pointed out, the difficult engineering for razors is in the blade, not the holder (look how cheap Bic disposables are). For printers it's the reverse, the machine is a lot more technically differentiated than the ink. Thus the business model does not make sense, but is in place so Wall Street feels comfortable.

Re:So state law...

[Waffle Iron]

I fail to see how preventing others from making ink cartridges promotes the progress of science and useful arts, therefore this should not fall under federal copyright law.

Hey- I just happen to be a struggling inkjet cartridge chip author. I've been working my ass off for years, holding down night jobs, working like a slave to support myself so I can write my chips. It's been a living hell, but I still hold on to my dream. One day I'm going to write an inkjet chip that hits the big time. And when I do, you better bet that I want all of the IP protection that I can get on my chips. I'm not going to pour my soul into little cartridges just so that some petty thieves can steal my hard work! I think I speak for all inkjet chip artists when I say we need strong copyright laws like the DMCA.

Re:So state law...

[Gothmolly]

And now someone else wasted a mod point! W00t! The 4g3n75 0f cH405 r0x0r5 u!

Re:So state law...

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron. They aren't saying that people can or should necessarily crack the "Copyrighted" ink cartridges. (What next, copyrighted gasoline?).

They're saying that such things will be against the law. So lexmark is free to make all of the crippleware they want, they just can't sell it in NC.

That's not contravening the DMCA at all. It is setting reasonable standards for consumer products in NC.

DJ

Re:So state law...

[WCMI92]

"Supercedes federal copyright law in North Carolina?

I doubt it, although Lexmark would be a fool to push it."

Yes they would.

The Feds only have the right to regulate INTERSTATE commerce. (much abused, BTW) Not INTRA-state.

So NC could make it completely legal to produce knock off inkjet carts and sell them *IN* NC.

I don't really see how the DMCA even protects Lexmark in this case. It DOES have a (weak) "interoperability" clause that would seem to make selling refills and compatible carts legal.

CONSUMABLE items should be exempt from copyright. They are hardly creative works. I suppose patent may apply, but considering that HP invented the inkjet, would Lexmark have any credible claim to patenting an inkjet cart?

Re:So state law...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been working my ass off for years, holding down night jobs, working like a slave to support myself so I can write my chips.

Screw that, you deserve to die in a gutter. Natural selection, baby! You die and I impregnate the chick you've had your eye on for years.

Re:So state law...

[Wateshay]

They don't have to patent the inkjet cartridge. They just have to patent the business process of using the DMCA to get undue value out of a product in order to offset the cost of a loss leader.

Re:So state law...

[Anonymous Coward]

HP did not invent ink jet printing. But even if they did the basic technology dates prior to 1960, thus the patent would have expired.

HP claims to have invented "Thermal inkjet printing" in the late 1970s. If HP had an enforceable patent on the issue, and Lexmark, Cannon, Epson, etc, were enfringing on their technology, do you really think they would have waited this long to take action?

Re:So state law...

[jot445]

(What next, copyrighted gasoline?)

Maybe inserting a particular phrase in the carbon chains for the Gasoline? Perhaps the new slogan for Shell would be HOCH, with their gasoline being "branded" by the addition of the CH2O chain somewhere in the gasoline. CAVEAT: IANAOC! Probably cost prohibitive and possibly dangerous or impossible. An interesting idea nonetheless.

Re:So state law...

[Valdrax]

CONSUMABLE items should be exempt from copyright.

Well.... While I agree with the sentiment behind that statement, it would never fly as an arguement in a court or before a legislature trying to pass a law to that effect. Can you imagine what would happen if a law was passed like that when disposable DVDs hit the market? (Personally, a law that discourages disposable DVDs is a good one, but I'm getting off-topic here.)

[C]onsidering that HP invented the inkjet, would Lexmark have any credible claim to patenting an inkjet cart?

I'm not sure that HP invented the inkjet, but it's not really relevant to the answer to your question. Yes, if you assume that HP had a patent on the inkjet and the inkjet cartridge, Lexmark could patent the interface that their "chipped" cartridges use to communicate their ink levels to the printer (unless HP got there first too). Then, while any inkjet printer and cartridge maker would have to pay royalties to HP, if they made cartridges that somehow communicated over a Lexmark-style interface, they'd have to negotiate for royalties with Lexmark, who could just decide to deny them permission to use their patent. Even HP, the holders of the inkjet patents would have to license from Lexmark the patent on chipped cartridges if they wanted to go that route. More than likely, as is the case with big business patents, they would be forced to cross-license each others patents to both stay in business. (Read up on the classic Sun vs. IBM stories for more info on how patents are essentially an anti-competitive tool for big businesses to wield against smaller upstarts).

While it's highly unlikely that a patent for an inkjet cartridge was granted in light of the current marketplace for 3rd party cartridges, it's easily believable that the recent use of chips in cartridges is patented by someone. It's a relatively novel if evil idea. It's likely that all the major manufacturers cross-license this patent by leveraging patents of their own against the patent holder. You just don't see 3rd party carts with chips in them currently, and I believe that may be part of the reason why.

Anyway, yes. Company B can patent an improvement to Company A's patented product.

Does this therefore apply to the whole USA?

[16K Ram Pack]

Not being an American, but presumably this means that people can mail order cartridges from North Carolina to their home address?

Is there a lot of this in the USA? States which have allowed things that are banned in other states gaining additional 'export' markets? I can think of people travelling to Vegas for one.

Re:Does this therefore apply to the whole USA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps somewhat. I live in North Carolina and our cigarette tax is one of the cheapest, because, well, we produce most of the cancer stick out there. It doesn't take long for people to see the feasability of stocking up on cigarettes while they are passing through NC on I-95

Re:Does this therefore apply to the whole USA?

[generic-man]

Is there a lot of this in the USA? States which have allowed things that are banned in other states gaining additional 'export' markets?

Yes. Look at all the border stores that sell fireworks -- it's illegal to take them back home, but the store owners don't care because their state's laws apply.

And in Pennsylvania, until recently all liquor stores were closed on Sunday -- currently 10% of them are open Sundays, as a pilot program. Until that happened, people had to drive to neighboring states to buy hard liquor on a Sunday. This happens in plenty of other states too -- and in some states, it happens at the county level.

And whatever you do, don't ask people in Greenwich, Connecticut what they think about New Yorkers buying Powerball tickets there...

Re:Does this therefore apply to the whole USA?

[1010011010]

There is a lot of it. The states are sometimes called the "laboritories" for legislation. The U.S. was set up with way -- a relatively weak and powerless federal government that provides for the common defense, currency, bankruptcy, and a few other things in the "enumerated powers." The states were responsible for all other legislation, except in areas reserved exclusively to the people. Things like freedom of speech, religion and assembly, and the right to bear arms are in that category (see 9th and 10th amendments). These days, a lot of federal mandates are achieved through the federal government's power of taxation, rather than more direct (and unconstitutional) means.

I'm not sure if the U.S. federal government is all that constitutional these days. Before FDR, there was a "presumption of liberty" that favors individuals and the states. Post-FDR, there was a "presumption of constitutionality" which favors congress and the president, and disfavors states and individual citizens. This flies in the face of the 9th and 10th Amendments, which are supposed to be part of the "supreme law of the land" that places limitations on the power of the federal government.

Re:Does this therefore apply to the whole USA?

[frank_adrian314159]

Post-FDR, there was a "presumption of constitutionality" which favors congress and the president, and disfavors states and individual citizens.

It was not really due to FDR. In reality, three things came together in the 20'th century to cause this.

First, the Great Depression needed to be ended and others like it prevented. This required a relatively strong central bank and a variety of social safety nets.

Next came WW II and the Cold War, requiring massive infusions of money and power into the federal government to secure our nation (and others).

Finally, people got tired of the Southern states not giving Americans of African heritage equal protection under the law. The Southern states' recalitrance on this issue put the last nail into any legitimacy states rights arguments might have retained.

All-in-all, it was not the government that expanded their own powers, but "we the people" asking for expanded federal powers to make our lives better. Whether this actually happened and what to do (if anything) about it is an issue that will be left for this century.

Re:Does this therefore apply to the whole USA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at all the border stores that sell fireworks -- it's illegal to take them back home, but the store owners don't care because their state's laws apply.

It's even more complex than that.
Wisconsin fireworks sellers check what state you are from.
Wisconsin allows fireworks to be sold to people from other states.
Wisconsin does not allow sales of fireworks to its residents.

It's a tourist industry.

Re:Does this therefore apply to the whole USA?

[poptones]

Ever drink california wine? there are wineries all over the country - there is even one near me, here in Mississippi - but because of moronic laws leftover from prohibition the wineries cannot EXPORT their product from the state. I have never seen logic in this, but that's the way it is in many states: they let their citizens make wine (or beer) but prohibit them from selling it across state lines. Stupid.

California has very liberal marijuana laws and many people exploit this. Alaska has even more liberal laws (there is even a judicial decision in that state that an individual has the right to grow and consume it in their own home) but because it's so isolated from the rest of the US I doubt many people are travelling across state lines to get their fix.

If you really wanna see a can of worms, look up the abortion laws and the lengths states have gone to worm around Roe v. Wade.

Re:Does this therefore apply to the whole USA?

[Wyatt Earp]

It's common here.

Like other people mentioned, Fireworks might be illegal in Oregon, but legal across the border in Washington, so we drive up there, buy them, drive home. Or to really mess with thing, stuff might be legal on an Indian Reservation and illegal in the state which surrounds the Reservation, or a Reservation might ban alcohol sales so you drive off the Reservation to buy your booze.

I'm from South Dakota and I once went to college in Minnesota, at the time grain alcohol was illegal in Minnesota so I got beer money by purchasing Everclear in South Dakota, watering it down and selling it in Minnesota for a 300% markup.

Re:Does this therefore apply to the whole USA?

[anagama]

Here's an off the cuff response, without any real research - not even a RTFA. For what it's worth, the Federal Gov't (i.e., WA DC) has the power to regulate interstate commerce (note that that here, "interstate" refers to trade between states of the US - this is a different usage than one sometimes finds in international law where "countries" can be called "states"). Sometime, somewhere, someone is going to argue that the DMCA is a law which regulates interstate commerce, that as a result, states have no power to legislate in that realm, and S. Carolina's law in particular is therefore invalid and unenforceable.

Personally, I think the whole ink/toner cartridge scam sucks, I'm just pointing out an argument I'd bet will be made - and without the benefit of any facts! ;-)

Finally...

[Lordfly]

I'm glad someone's deciding to finally act on this. Ink cartridges should not be costing 20,30,40 dollars. It's ink... the technology has been around for several hundred years. Now granted, printer technology has only been around 20 years, but still, it's not like it's rocket science (or rocket fuel, for that matter :)

Re:Finally...

[AndroidCat]

I remember when inkjet printers first came out and the prices/life were reasonable. (Not great, just reasonable.) Then HP more than doubled the price and claimed that they doubled the life. (They didn't.) And the damned ink ran out of the cartridges if you didn't print for a week, which it didn't do before.

If they'd just kept the technology/pricing where it was 13 years ago I'd be happy. I am not happy, fsck them!

Re:Finally...

[ugly_a]

With ink cartridges surpassing the cost of Dom perignon, the rocket fuel just might be cheaper.

Re:Finally...

[Lordfly]

probably tastes better too :P

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rocket fuel is cheap.

Re:Finally...

[Sommelier]

...Ink cartridges should not be costing 20,30,40 dollars. It's ink... the technology has been around for several hundred years...

The expensive part of a cartridge is not the ink, it is the printhead that shoots the ink out. That printhead is really a multi-layered silcon chip that has been manufactured in a manner similar to microprocessors and DRAM, except that tiny holes (on the order of thousand per inch) have been placed to allow ink to squirt out.

Whether it is Epson's piezo technology or HP's thermal technology, an inkjet cartridge is simply a bag of ink sitting on top of a carefully designed silicon chip. And all of the these printer manufacturers have chip fabs that would make Intel proud.

Now, should it still cost 20,30,40 dollars? Probably not. But there is a little more to it than just ink...

Sommelier

Re:Finally...

[alienw]

Dude, get a better printer. Only HP and Lexmark make printers with shitty printheads integrated into the cartridge. Epson has one permanently built-in (so it tends to dry out -- don't get them). Canon has a printhead that's separate from the ink tanks, yet replaceable. I've been using the same head for a few years and it's still decent. Replacement head is only $40, too.

Re:Finally...

[Ojamin]

Yes Epson's are built in, but this does need to be cleaned some how, and do you know how they clean them? The ink that you paid for. With a canon printer, lets say the BJC-2100 its a fairly common printer, you can buy the carts for cheep, ~$10cdn for black and ~$30cdn for color, these both have a yield of ~100pgs at 15% coverage. That's pretty low, but price per page ends up being fairly close for HP, Epson, and Canon. It's Lexmark that has the highest PPP. And on top of that most of there consumer printers are pure shit.

Re:Finally...

[alienw]

For $20 (sam's club), I got a refill kit with enough ink to outlast the printer. It came with about half a liter of ink. You can refill HPs, too, but those die after a while. With canons, you don't even need to ever buy new ink tanks, since it's just a sponge. I couldn't care less how much ink it wastes, since bulk ink is rather cheap.

Re:Finally...

[Moofie]

Than Dom Perignon? Not hard. Hell, I'd rather drink Miller Lite.

Dom Perignon is a marketing joke. Everybody in Europe knows it sucks. The only place the French can sell that piss is in the US and in Japan. Everybody else seems to realize it tastes like sweat socks.

Me, I'll take a nice asti spumante. I can get a case or two for the price of a bottle of Dom, and I don't feel like I have to wash my mouth out afterwards.

Re:Finally...

[WCMI92]

"I'm glad someone's deciding to finally act on this. Ink cartridges should not be costing 20,30,40 dollars. It's ink... the technology has been around for several hundred years. Now granted, printer technology has only been around 20 years, but still, it's not like it's rocket science (or rocket fuel, for that matter :)"

Ironically, the inkjet printer was invented to COMBAT the high cost of laser printers in the late 80's/early 90's. AFAIK, the first was the HP DeskJet. At the time, inkjets were FAR cheaper than lasers, produced comparable quality, could do color, and completely displaced the dot matrix printer as the consumer printer of choice.

Now I find myself missing my old dot matrix... I bought a ribbon for that thing, like, every 3 months (costing $5), and printed the HELL out of it.

But now I have a laser (Okidata OkiPage 4w) that I got for free, and haven't YET used the first toner cart (over a year).

Re:Finally...

[pmz]

With ink cartridges surpassing the cost of Dom perignon, the rocket fuel just might be cheaper.

I'd argue that champagne provides a better value, too (i.e., you can get a buzz off of it, but the ink would probably just make you sick).

Let's do it with Apple!

[axxackall]

There are many areas of the market place that this should be applied.

First where I'd like to see it is with Apple computers.

Apple must leave the choice of OS to customers - right now you still have to pay for OSX when you are buying Mac even if you plan to use Mac with Linux or BeOS or BSD.

And, of course, Apple must let go their firmware, so that Mac clones will be available again.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Mononoke]

And, of course, Apple must let go their firmware, so that Mac clones will be available again.

Once again: Why? How will this benefit Apple? How will it benefit consumers?

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Wyatt Earp]

If you have a G4 or whatever you DO have a choice of OS. Either an Apple OS or Linux or Darwin.

If you buy a computer from SGI what OS choice do you have when you order it? For the workstation, it don't look like it
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/fuel/sys_softw are. html
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/tezro/sys_so ftware .html
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/octane2/sys _softwa re.html

What Lexmark is doing and what Apple/Sun/SGI are doing is like comparing Apples and Oranges.

Yea, when you buy a G4 you get stuck with OS X and Classic. But Apple doesn't use the DMCA to keep you from installing Linux on the box.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[reiggin]

There is no reason on earth for this except to please a small group of insignificant consumers. Quite simply, it is unfair to Apple for the government to FORCE them to do so or for you anyone to suggest this idea. They are not monopolistic nor are they practicing non-competitive practices which harm the consumer. It is their RIGHT to control their product and how it is used. Otherwise, they'd be a dead company. This is America and thus it is a free market society. To tell them to do otherwise with their product is communistic. I'm sick of people who think the government should interfere in all these market situations. If Lexmark wants to act the way they are with regards to the DMCA, they will shoot themselves in the foot -- they don't need the government to pull the trigger. Maybe Apple will do the same. But we really need to lay off the idea of such heavy-handed government intervention in a free market society. Very rarely should we seek government intervention. Standard Oil, Ma' Bell, Microsoft -- these are issues for the feds. I think we, as consumers, can take care of Lexmark just fine, thank you. Why? Because we still have other options. Someone mentioned Epson. Good point! And with regards to Apple? Yeah, you still have plenty of other options to choose from. Don't whine about that when there's gadzooks of other manufacturers of alternate platforms and even enough PPC motherboards to statisfy. You do not have to buy OSX if you want a LinuxPPC box.

Yeah. I'm a quasi-liberterian.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

Ever heard of competition? Thought not. Mac troll.
I guess you have never heard of the compaq BIOS reverse engineering that started the whole x86 PC platform. (Yes, started it, because without out this reverse engineering, x86 would have never been remotely popular like it is today)

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[perimorph]

"Apple must leave the choice of OS to customers - right now you still have to pay for OSX when you are buying Mac even if you plan to use Mac with Linux or BeOS or BSD."

Apple doesn't prevent you from using a different OS, though. That's like saying Lexmark shouldn't include an ink cartridge with the printer when you buy it -- if nothing prevents you from changing it, I don't see why it would be a problem.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Mononoke]

Ever heard of competition? Thought not. Mac troll.

Hmm, I could have sworn Apple had competition. They must have 100% of the personal computer market then.

I guess you have never heard of the compaq BIOS reverse engineering that started the whole x86 PC platform. (Yes, started it, because without out this reverse engineering, x86 would have never been remotely popular like it is today)

The part I haven't heard about was how successful it was for the originators of the x86PC platform. Maybe you could enlighten me.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to point out, for the benefit of those who didn't notice, that Apple's firmware is an open standard.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[psykocrime]

Very rarely should we seek government intervention. Standard Oil, Ma' Bell, Microsoft -- these are issues for the feds.

The nice thing is, this is a state government taking action. Whether it's a "real good move" or not is slightly debatable, but it is good to see a state government doing what it should... responding to the needs / wants of it's constituents.

The whole idea of limiting the power of the federal government is based on the idea that most decision making should happen at a level that's closer to the people it affects - ie, state and local government.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

"How will this benefit Apple?"
How will preventing Lexmark from only allowing Lexmark ink to be used benefit Lexmark?

"How will it benefit consumers?"
The same way as allowing competition for ink; cheaper prices, more variety.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sory how you got moderated man. Slashdot, the new land of macheads!

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[B'Trey]

Uh, hello. Care to think this through a bit? Don't you think the DMCA constitutes the government interfering in the market? If the federal government wasn't interfering in the right of people to reverse engineer products like Lexmarks printer cartridges, this legislation wouldn't be necessary. I agree that the free market is a better solution than government interference most of the time, but Lexmark using the DMCA to stifle competition isn't the free market.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple uses the DMCA to keep other companies from reverse engineering their BIOS though, and creating Mac Clones. That's identical to what Lexmark is doing. The fact that they make you pay for MacOS when you buy a mac is another issue for which MS has been criticized harshly here, and prevented from doing by court order eventually.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Fareq]

OK, Apple is both a hardware and a software company, correct?

Apple hardware counts for what, 3% of the consumer market? I don't know for sure, but its at least 2%-ish and not more than 5%-ish.
Now. Apple makes Mac computers. Mac computers cost more than PCs per unit of computing power.

Yes, I will grant, for the sake of argument, that Mac's G4 architecture is superior to that of, say Intel's P4 and P4-Xeon.
But, for approximately the price of a high-end G4 ~1Ghz, I could easily get a 3.06Ghz P4 system, and likely even a dual 2.4 or 2.8 Xeon system...

Mac cloning would put downward pressure on the hardware prices. Suddenly Macs would not cost thousands of dollars while PCs cost only hundreds.
Thus, it is likely that Mac hardware would take a larger chunk of the market, perhaps, say, 10-15% of the total market.

That means that Apple could sell 3-5 times as many copies of the latest version of OS X. And many more copies of all their other software.
Thus, Apple could become a real player in the marketplace, instead of the little guy on the side.

And, correect me if I'm wrong, but it would not be a crime (under the DMCA or any other law) to reverse engineer the core Mac architecture and produce a compatible product.

On the other hand, it would be a violation of the DMCA to reverse engineer the print cartridges in the same manner because the DMCA protects the copyright protected code.

Oh, and another thing. If you've ever read the text of the DMCA, you will find that it does not prohibit the circumventing of access control mechanisms, but only the circumvention of EFFECTIVE access control mechanisms. (by my reading, IANAL)
If you can prove that the Lexmark mechanism is ineffective (as stands) then you should be home free as far as circumvention is concerned...
but the courts have yet to define "effective" here

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Wyatt Earp]

Actually, Apple used DMCA to keep Other World Computing from patching iDVD so it'd work with other external and internal DVD-RWs

That's all I found from looking for Apple DMCA and Apple DMCA ROM

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple killed clone makers long before the DMCA using normal copyright laws. Here's a story of how they killed a PowerPC chip maker.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't find anything on Apple suing over their ROM, because no one has tried to reverse engineer it, for fear of a lawsuit. The only other way to boot MacOS is to buy the ROM from Apple, and of course they won't sell it to you. This is the only thing preventing people from designing a mac clone and selling it to you without an OS. Someone tried selling Mac clones recently using old Apple motherboards from repair shops, but was sued by Apple.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[sharkman67]

This is where you are wrong. Apple is a hardware company that writes their own OS and software.

Apple makes their money on hardware sales. Period. Remeber the clone wars? Power Computing, Umax and the others qucikly developed better and more powerful machines than Apple. This almost killed them. They spent more time and money updating the OS (no profit here) while everyone purchased everyone elses hardware. if Steve Jobs had not come back in the fold and killed the clones Apple wouldn't be here today. Don't get me wrong, I was as pissed off as everyone else when the clones were killed but in the long run I now see it was the right thing to do. This same reasoning goes to why you will never see OSX on x86.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[jx100]

Actually, I believe a Mac ROM is not necessarily required to boot Mac OS. A Linux/PPC machine can run an VM program called Mac-on-Linux. This allows a Mac OS (or, I believe, any other PPC OS) to run as a guest OS under Linux. This isn't quite having the ability to boot directly into Mac OS without a ROM, but it does mean that someone has RE'd the ROM (or otherwise figured out a way around it)

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

Look at IBM or Intel. Compaq reverse enginnered IBM's BIOS.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Maserati]

Nobody has ever actually come out and officially said it, but Apple is under severe licensing restrictions with regard to MPEG-2. The MPEG-2 license accounts for much of the cost of QuicktimePro (QTPro is $25, MPEG-2 is $10-$20 of that). Since iDVD does MPEG-2 encoding, Apple has to pay a fee for every copy of iDVD that is burning DVDs. The OWC product got around that and could have gotten Apple in an expensive court case.

The DMCA was just the "appropriate" tool for the job in the opinion of Apple's legal team.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

But Apple doesn't use the DMCA to keep you from installing Linux on the box.

Neither does SGI.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Wyatt Earp]

I bought G3 ROMs before.

I had an older G3 which couldn't handle slave on the IDE bus so I got a newer rev ROM.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[reiggin]

I understand Lexmark's abuse. But we cannot expect the government to go back and fix all the problems. It just won't happen. So we must boycott or protest to the company also.

Secondly, the DMCA issue is nonsequintor when it comes to the issue of Apple Computer, Inc. The parent post is arguing about Apple and how the same tactics (government-wise) should be used against them. As someone else pointed out, it's "apples to oranges." Apple deserves absolutely no government intervention. There is no precident and neither should there be. They are playing fair.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[ZZ-Type]

Chee, if you did that, you'd have ... a PEE CEE!!!! So if you want a PEE CEE, why not just buy one? You can get one CHEAPER! Go for it, man! Dell operators are waiting for your call!

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[silverhalide]

And, of course, Apple must let go their firmware, so that Mac clones will be available again. Once again: Why? How will this benefit Apple? How will it benefit consumers?

More simply put, you don't use up your firmware and have to replentish it every other week...

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[weierstrass]

Another way of looking at it is that an operating system represents a considerable intellectual property investment, whereas the means by which ink cartridges are filled does not.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA doesn't "protect the copyright protected code". Copyright is its OWN legal protection. The DMCA anti-circumvention clause protects copy perversion and access control mechanisms -- even when the copying or access in question does NOT constitute a copyright violation.

So the claim is that by making a compatible cartridge (which necessarily involves getting around the bogus "access control" mechanism they added), third-party manufacturers are in violation of the anti-circumvention clause. No copyright infringement is necessary.

One hole in this argument is that the DMCA supposedly allows reverse engineering for interoperability. A more fundamental problem is that this "add chips to get the Government to automatically outlaw competition" garbage goes against the grain of the Constitutional authorization for copyright, and against free market values.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[usotsuki]

Umm...Executor?

YFI

-uso.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Kynde]

If you have a G4 or whatever you DO have a choice of OS. Either an Apple OS or Linux or Darwin.

If you buy a computer from SGI what OS choice do you have when you order it? For the workstation, it don't look like it
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/fuel/sys_softw are. html
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/tezro/sys_so ftware .html
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/octane2/sys _softwa re.html

Unless you hadn't paved the way and I hadn't the karma to burn I wouldn't bother, but...

If you buy a computer from XXXX what OS choice do you have when you order it?

Insert any pc hw vendor there and you know the answer.

Few examples:
IBM
Dell
HP (uses servlets so the link's not direct, but try customizing a desktop/notbook from there...)
etc...

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Kynde]

That's like saying Lexmark shouldn't include an ink cartridge with the printer when you buy it -- if nothing prevents you from changing it, I don't see why it would be a problem.

Not trying to flame here, but this is exaclty how things are :
s/Lexmark/ANY PC HW VENDOR/
s/an ink cartridge/a Microsoft OS/
s/printer/computer/
s/don't//

If I'm never gonna use it I don't want to pay for it.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[AlanS2002]

If you can't see how competition would benefit consumers perhaps you should think a little more about it.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[banzai51]

How will this benefit Apple?

Ever hear of a little company called Microsoft? They only sell the OS. Wait, check that, they only lease the OS. By leaving the hardware to clones, you sell more computers. Soon the profit from selling the OS will far, far eclipse the profit from hardware. In short, Apple would radically expand it's marketshare and make more money.

How will it benefit consumers?

Lower cost Macs with the same quality. You got a problem with that?

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[banzai51]

It was only unprofitable because Apple was inflexable. They insisted on staying in the hardware business while the clones were beating them senseless. If they dumped the hardware business and concentrated on software, they would have been massively profitable.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[pmz]

Apple uses the DMCA to keep other companies from reverse engineering their BIOS though, and creating Mac Clones.

Isn't their "BIOS" really an OpenBoot PROM?

OpenBoot PROM is an IEEE standard, IIRC, and Sun, for example, has used OBP their hardware since the late 80's or early 90's. I haven't used the Mac version, but it is really nifty to plug a serial console into a Sun and do a diagnostics boot. Also, the OBP makes x86-style hacks like lilo unneccessary, thanks to devaliases and persistent NVRAM storage.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[SillySlashdotName]

How will this benefit Apple?

Since when is legislations' primary intend to benefit corporations? I realize it often does, and that congress critters are willing to bend over and squeal like a pig if the money is right, but I doubt that should be a primary consideration when deciding if a certain piece of legislation is 'good' or 'bad'.

How will it benefit consumers?

1) Competition for costumers will lower the price and/or increase the guality.
2) Lower price and/or increased quality should attract more customers from the Wintel faction.
3) More users will make developing for the platform more attractive.
4) More apps, games, productivity software will make the platform more attractive to customers - which will be good for Apple. See your first question.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[ckaminski]

I have to admit you have a point there. Their hardware is nowhere near as impressive as their software is. I think what Apple fears from the clone market is that if they stop making hardware, then they *ARE* toast if everyone stops making Macs.

Or they could just do what Intel does and get into the system OEM business, and stop selling "Apple" branded Mac's.

Nah, never happen.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[LafinJack]

1. Dump the huge hardware section of your company.
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[LafinJack]

Um, wasn't it Phoenix Technologies that reverse engineered IBM's BIOS?

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[SillySlashdotName]

Apple is a hardware company...

Apple makes their money on hardware sales. Period.

Power Computing, Umax and the others qucikly [sic]developed better and more powerful machines than Apple. (my emphasis)

... while everyone purchased everyone elses hardware.

Do I understand you to be saying Apple can't compete in their own area of expertise in an open market?

... I now see it was the right thing to do.

The right thing for Apple to do FOR APPLE. For consumers, for users, for future innovations, for "better and more powerful machines" the wrong thing to do.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

the compaq enginers who did it, left compaq to form phoenix tech.

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[An ominous Cow art]

>I guess you have never heard of the compaq BIOS >reverse engineering that started the whole x86 PC >platform. (Yes, started it, because without out >this reverse engineering, x86 would have never been >remotely popular like it is today)

And x86 being popular is a good thing why?

Re:Let's do it with Apple!

[SillySlashdotName]

PC = Personal Computer.

"Personal Computer" is a description of how a machine is used, not the platform.

Many (I would guess most) APPLE computers ARE used as a PC.

+2,FUNNY? Don't give that moderator any more points, (S)he doesn't know what funny is!

Not about choice

[retto]

Oh please....consumer choice doesn't have anything to do with this. A North Carolina company may get shut down, costing 1,200 jobs, which is why there is soon going to be a law protecting it.

I half expect Kentucky's government to jump in and ban the sale of replacement ink cartridges to protect Kentucky jobs or some other nonsense.

Re:Not about choice

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's our fault, that these companies can't turn a profit without screwing the people they do bussiness with? I don't think so. Let them die, new jobs with companies that can compete will replace them. Thats the beauty of capitalism, demand will lead to supply.

Re:Not about choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Kentucky jobs my ass. Everybody but the top few employees are contractors. As for jobs, the inkjet area is moving to Cebu, Phillipines at a breakneck speed. The state of KY is pissed because Lexmark screwed them out of millions for an R&D facility in Lexington. Guess who uses that? Marketing and Legal. The place is outsourcing and contracting at breakneck. As for all printer HP, LXK etc. They essentially buy crap from Korea, China.....you name it. Redo the firmware, rebadge it and sell it.

Re:Not about choice

[Anonymous Coward]

It really pisses me off when so-called "capitalists" like you, the airlines and DMCA-babies cry (read: finance campaigns and then lobby to the winners) to the federal government to legislate them some life-support.

Re:Not about choice

[WCMI92]

"I half expect Kentucky's government to jump in and ban the sale of replacement ink cartridges to protect Kentucky jobs or some other nonsense"

I live in Ky (sadly, born here).

The govenor is too busy keeping himself out of prison for using FEDERAL funds to get himself laid.

The attorney general is too busy RUNNING for govenor to keep the state for the Democrat Party that has owned the state legislature since before the Civil War.

They have a lot more to think about than Lexmark.

Re:Not about choice

[Patrick]

Oh please....consumer choice doesn't have anything to do with this. A North Carolina company may get shut down, costing 1,200 jobs, which is why there is soon going to be a law protecting it.

I don't think Static Control would get shut down if they lost to Lexmark. Cloned printer cartridges are not their first or (IIRC) largest business. They make static bags and shields (thus the name) and electronic test equipment. I don't know what inspired them to venture into the ink cartridge market.

I do not doubt that Static Control asked for this law, but I don't think those 1200 jobs or the company's existence were at stake.

NC's passage of the "right to refill" law is in keeping with its passage two years ago of a UCITA bomb-shelter law. Both aim to limit the effect of bad technology laws in other jurisdictions on NC customers.

competition is good for the consumer...

[ravenousbugblatter]

For anyone wanting cheap ink cartridges here's a weird place you can check out, called lasermonks.

More on topic, if this bill get's signed it'll be interesting to see if similar legislation is passed in other states.

Re:competition is good for the consumer...

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer Ink4Art.com. Plus now you can save 25% with coupon code hot29.

Consumers do have *some* power.

[Corvaith]

I always buy my printers based on how much it'll run me to replace the ink afterwards. Not necessarily comparing *just* that, granted, but it's a big factor. These days, my favored brand is generally Epson, and my still-relatively-new Stylus C62 has been good to me. And replacement ink doesn't break the bank.

If people would *think* before they purchase and realize that Lexmark may have decent printer prices but their ink is absolutely ridiculous, such legislation would be largley unnecessary.

Re:Consumers do have *some* power.

[rootofevil]

um dude, lexmark carts are only a few dollars more than epson

Re:Consumers do have *some* power.

[AndroidCat]

If people would *think* before they purchase

That doesn't always work. I've still got a perfectly good HP Deskjet 500. When I bought it, the cartridges worked fine, lasted a reasonable time. I haven't been able to use it in years because HP's nu'n'inproved cartridges for it SUCK at a much higher price. I no longer buy printers that tie me a single source for ink/toner.

Re:Consumers do have *some* power.

[Peyna]

There are some Lexmark printers currently on the market that can be obtained for less than the ink cartridges can. Thus, it is cheaper to buy a new printer than to buy replacement ink. There HAS to be something wrong with that.

Re:Consumers do have *some* power.

[dakryx]

The ink cartirdges that come with the printer when you buy it aren't full

Re:Consumers do have *some* power.

[LetterJ]

This gets floated as a "solution" to the problem frequently. Unfortunately, the cartridges in these new printers contain less and less ink. They're almost getting to be as useless as the sample packs of paper they come with too.

Re:Consumers do have *some* power.

[WCMI92]

"I always buy my printers based on how much it'll run me to replace the ink afterwards. Not necessarily comparing *just* that, granted, but it's a big factor. These days, my favored brand is generally Epson, and my still-relatively-new Stylus C62 has been good to me. And replacement ink doesn't break the bank."

If I ever buy another inkjet printer (I've yet to replace my dead HP 672C), I will likely go for Canon. They have seperate ink tanks for each color, and each tank is less than $8.

Most likely I will wait for used color lasers to come down below $500.

Until then, I'll continue to use my 4 year old, acquired for free Okidata OkiPage 4 that is still on the first toner that I got for it.

Re:Consumers do have *some* power.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're half full, and you get black as well as color. Either full cartridge alone would cost more than some of these printers. Both would be more than double... so it's still cheaper to just go through two printers.

Re:Consumers do have *some* power.

[Corvaith]

If you actually buy the Epson ink.

Epson *hasn't*, thus far, made moves to prevent others from making ink cartridges for their printers. I've been able to get decent quality for a much, much lower price elsewhere.

Re:Consumers do have *some* power.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real stupidity about dumping is that in the end any company that does dump can be easily screwed over simply by having their competitors buy up all their underpriced stock and either reselling it for more or straight out trashing it. The latter has the added advantage of making all their ink sales useless, especially if they tie ink cartridge to printer model. If I had the money to do it, I'd do just that and laugh as my competitors went under.

Re:Consumers do have *some* power.

[blibbleblobble]

"I always buy my printers based on how much it'll run me to replace the ink afterwards."

Tom's hardware had some useful reviews which assessed the total cost of the printers under review as purchase price + ink cost of 1000 pages of b&w + ink cost of 1000 pages of colour. It's actually a very useful way of comparing printers, and my family have been quite happy with the 2 printers they bought on the basis of that review.

Re:Consumers do have *some* power.

[rootofevil]

buying generic ink clogged my 740 beyond a hope of fixing it. thanks, but ill pass.

Special exemptions

[interiot]

Why not fix the whole DMCA? Or at least codify something stating that DMCA doesn't cover cases where the intent was clearly only anticompetitive?

Re:Special exemptions

[raistphrk]

I believe Senator Hatch would say that this is another example of the DMCA working. The concept behind intellectual property is express consent from the government to monopolize something. In the case of copyright, an entity monopolizes the distribution of a work. In patent law, a company monopolizes a novel implementation of some idea.

The DMCA expands copyright into a sort of paracopoyright arena, adding access control as a right of an inventor or content holder. Which brings us to Lexmark. The DMCA was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to limit competition. In the Lexmark example, the basic idea is that if a company creates a product, say, a printer cartridge, they should be able to decide how it's accessed or used; more specifically, they should be able to decide what parts are put into the printer.

This principle, of course, goes against the evolution of business. If the Japanese hadn't tinkered with the inerts of a car, they wouldn't have designed cheaper cars, and in turn American businesses wouldn't have raced to catch up with Japanese innovation. Paracopyright does create a barrier to innovation; however, that was the intent of the law. The DMCA was drafted to protect the profits of companies, whether record companies, movie studios, or printer manufacturers, by expanding the artificial trade of so-called intellectual properties, and by limiting consumers' access to the products they buy.

The Ford analogy in the article is right on the mark. Automakers already have a stranglehold on the new car market, as they refuse to disclose diagnostic codes to small auto shops. Because the chips on which these codes are programmed is protected by a TPM, reverse engineering would be a no-no. As automakers make even newer cars, it's likely that they'll install chips in each part that report when the part goes bad - which is certainly an advantage for consumers. However, the "digital" side of the chip would, of course, be protected by the DMCA, and, like the whole Lexmark debacle, would suddenly force consumers to use official parts.

I don't expect Detroit to start rolling out those parts until additions to the DMCA are passed by Congress - which, I would add, will happen within the next three years, IMHO. Now would be a good time to start lobbying.

Re:Special exemptions

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, great idea. And who the fuck gets to decide this?

Re:Special exemptions

[interiot]

Intent? Courts do it all the time. You know, lots of guys standing around arguing, judges deciding on a case-by-case basis, that sort of thing.

Re:Special exemptions

[Grishnakh]

Why not fix the whole DMCA? Or at least codify something stating that DMCA doesn't cover cases where the intent was clearly only anticompetitive?

Because the corporations that purchased the DMCA wouldn't like that, and would tell their legislators in Congress to bury it.

Toner vs. ink

[My name isn't Tim]

The big money is in toner not inkjet ink. Toner cartridges are the cartridges that Lexmark put anti-refill technology on. Things like counting the amount of times the drum roles restricting the cartridge to so many pages printed (even if there's still toner left in the cartridge!) there are companies out there that can circumvent this. check out Multilaser

Re:Toner vs. ink

[Suppafly]

A lot of inkjet printers are using similar technology to insure that refilled cartridges are aren't put back in by keeping track of the serial numbers of cartridges put into the printer.. Also, some printers decide a cartridge or one of the colors is too old after a certain amount of time and refuse to use it even if it is full. They claim this is so that they can ensure quality or something, but its obvious the intent is to keep refilled cartridges from being useful.

Re:Toner vs. ink

[WCMI92]

"The big money is in toner not inkjet ink. Toner cartridges are the cartridges that Lexmark put anti-refill technology on. Things like counting the amount of times the drum roles restricting the cartridge to so many pages printed (even if there's still toner left in the cartridge!) there are companies out there that can circumvent this"

I HATE Lexmark laser printers. They suck. Setting them up on a network is a LOT harder than a HP or Okidata. And, they need repairs much more often.

We still have HP LaserJet 2's and 3's out there, along with 2000's, 4000's, etc, that only have to have consumables replaced (drums, toner).

Some more than a decade old!

I've YET to see a Lexmark Optra laser last more than 3 years before it's too expensive to repair.

I won't touch a HP inkjet anymore, but their laser printers are the best.

No effect!

[www.sorehands.com]

IANAL. But, I tend to doubt that local law can overide Federal Copyright Law.

Re:No effect!

[coats]

Copyright or no copyright, it can force Lexmark out of selling printers that engage in abusing copyright law in North Carolina at all, even though Lexmark treis to use the connivance of the courts (copyright law does explicitly permit reverse engineering for compatibility, even though the court opinion ignores that fact).

We live in a time and place of judges who ignore and break the law and who break their oaths to uphold the law!

Um, So what?

[Lord Kano]

The DMCA is federal. No matter how much we wish otherwise, we need to make the change at a federal level.

Even though California or Oregon voters may be in favor of medical marijuana, the federal prohibition on marijuana trumps that.

Repeal DMCA on a federal level, or otherwise the efforts are meaningless.

LK

Re:Um, So what?

[jonman_d]

Unfortunatly, you're right. De jure nullification is dead. But de faco nullification is alive and kicking. Take your marijuana example: locally, Californian state officials generally don't enforce the federal marijuana laws. They don't have to. That's why you get federal officers doing most of the drug-busting in California, which costs the federal government a load of cash and time.

And what happens to people in California, when they're found guilty of growing or posessing medical marijuana? They get just one day in jail.

Now, apply this to ink. Granted, it's a lot different that marijuana laws - but, the state will wind up doing nothing to help the federal government in this matter, which is a big win. And it'll turn a blind-eye to anyone who wants to keep producing 3rd-party ink. Another win.

The idea of nullification now'a'days is just to be such a pain in the ass that the federal government has to eventually rethink their position. Hell, look at all the anti-patriot act bills floating around.

Re:Um, So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

someone give this man some moderation luuuuuv.

Re:Um, So what?

[jazman_777]

Even though California or Oregon voters may be in favor of medical marijuana, the federal prohibition on marijuana trumps that.

This is insightful? It shows ignorance of basic Constitutional issues, such as the 10th Amendment. The Constitution delegates states' power to the Central Gov't. If it ain't delegated explicitly, the power stays with the States. Copyright and patent _were_ delegated. Medicine certainly wasn't.

But then, that means that most of what the Central State does is illegal.

Re:Um, So what?

[Lord Kano]

Californian state officials generally don't enforce the federal marijuana laws. They don't have to. That's why you get federal officers doing most of the drug-busting in California, which costs the federal government a load of cash and time.

True enough, but in this day and age of "homeland security" the feds have pretty deep pockets. I'm sure we've all seen the TV commercials about how buying a sack of weed will finance worldwide terrorism.

And what happens to people in California, when they're found guilty of growing or posessing medical marijuana? They get just one day in jail.

Until one of two things happen. When the feds need a new whipping boy, medical MJ is an easy target. Or, when the feds tie federal highway money to a state's laws on MJ, a state like CA that is already billions of dollars in debt will have no choice but to comply.

Now, apply this to ink. Granted, it's a lot different that marijuana laws - but, the state will wind up doing nothing to help the federal government in this matter, which is a big win. And it'll turn a blind-eye to anyone who wants to keep producing 3rd-party ink. Another win.

The carrot of federal dollars has a LOT to do with a state's laws. Have you ever wondered why every state in the union has a minimum drinking age of 21? Or why most states has a maximum speed limit of 55 (until about a decade ago)?

As a matter of principle you have to attack federal idiocy at the federal level.

The idea of nullification now'a'days is just to be such a pain in the ass that the federal government has to eventually rethink their position. Hell, look at all the anti-patriot act bills floating around.

If only more of my countrymen would learn about their right to jury nullification, we'd see fewer stupid laws on the books.

LK

Re:Um, So what?

[Lord Kano]

This is insightful? It shows ignorance of basic Constitutional issues, such as the 10th Amendment. The Constitution delegates states' power to the Central Gov't. If it ain't delegated explicitly, the power stays with the States. Copyright and patent _were_ delegated. Medicine certainly wasn't.

Your response shows an ignorance of case law and the preeminent judicial interpretation of the constitution. Congress is given the authority to regulate "interstate commerce", printers and ink are shipped and sold between states.

I'll quote the constitution for the benefit of the uninformed


Congress shall have the power...

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states and with the Indian Tribes

Guess what that means.

Re:Um, So what?

[jazman_777]

Your response shows an ignorance of case law and the preeminent judicial interpretation of the constitution.

Your response shows an ignorance of the fact that the Central State (via the Judiciary) gets to interpret what the Central State can do. That is _the_ fly in the ointment, and most often, the three branches collude to extend their power.

Re:Um, So what?

[jonman_d]

I think I'd probably agree with pretty much everything you said. Especially the deep-pockets thing. But, I do believe that before you can get to a federal-level attack on these things, you need states to stand up and act. The federal government is big, fat, and dumb. State governments are easier to influence, and it just becomes that much easier to change federal law when you've got a bunch of states on your side.

"If only more of my countrymen would learn about their right to jury nullification, we'd see fewer stupid laws on the books."

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed on a jury if you have an IQ >= 100.

Re:Um, So what?

[ajs318]

Do you mean to say that US Federal laws outweigh individual state laws? That is so arse-backwards. Surely local laws should prevail locally, then state, then federal laws. {If what happens in an Enclosed Space will have no influence outside that Enclosed Space, then no-one outside of that space has the right to object to what happens therein}. Otherwise you haven't got a federal system at all, you've got a feudal system.

Re:Um, So what?

[deblau]

DMCA is a federal law. So what? Law is words on paper, and people's willingness to act by those words. It goes no further. If Californians don't want to follow the law, they won't, and no amount of the feds crying "follow our laws or we'll make new ones!" will help.

Consider: for the federal ban to come into play, a medical marijuana case would have to be appealed to federal court, and a lower CA court decision overruled. Since medical pot users are only supposed to consume small quantities, this doesn't happen unless a prosecutor is trying to make an example of someone, otherwise it's too expensive. Most local prosecutors don't have the time, money, or inclination to do so, and federal prosecutors are getting the cold shoulder from the CA law enforcement and justice systems.

States do still have rights, even in this age of large, centralized government. It is still possible to fight bad federal laws at a state level.

Re:Um, So what?

[WCMI92]

"Now, apply this to ink. Granted, it's a lot different that marijuana laws - but, the state will wind up doing nothing to help the federal government in this matter, which is a big win. And it'll turn a blind-eye to anyone who wants to keep producing 3rd-party ink. Another win."

And if the Feds start spending $millions of dollars to enforce Lexmark's WEAK DMCA claim on carts in North Carolina, they won't have anything to back it up except that it "harms corporate monopolies".

They get away with enforcement againt pot growers by claiming harm to the user, etc.

DMCA actions will be very transparent, and will make even the average idiot see that the government has long ago ceased to be bound by Constitutional limits.

Re:Um, So what?

[Lord Kano]

Law is words on paper, and people's willingness to act by those words. It goes no further. If Californians don't want to follow the law, they won't, and no amount of the feds crying "follow our laws or we'll make new ones!" will help.

But someone losing a civil judgement and having to pay Lexmark $150,000 WILL make a difference.

Since medical pot users are only supposed to consume small quantities, this doesn't happen unless a prosecutor is trying to make an example of someone, otherwise it's too expensive.

Do you have a TV? Do you watch it? Don't you remember Ashcroft sending the DEA and FBI to take people to jail for dispensing medical MJ?

LK

Re:Um, So what?

[Lord Kano]

Do you mean to say that US Federal laws outweigh individual state laws?

Ah, Canadian or European?

That is so arse-backwards. Surely local laws should prevail locally, then state, then federal laws. {If what happens in an Enclosed Space will have no influence outside that Enclosed Space, then no-one outside of that space has the right to object to what happens therein}.

If my state (Pennsylvania) has no restrictions on the amount of arsenic that an industrial plant can release into a river, but when that river gets to Ohio, those people have no recourse if there is no Federal standard.

Otherwise you haven't got a federal system at all, you've got a feudal system.

Be that as it may, thems the breaks.

LK

Re:Um, So what?

[ajs318]

Ah, Canadian or European? Canadian or European what? I presume you aren't talking about me because you should already know where I'm from, just from my e-mail address.

If my state (Pennsylvania) has no restrictions on the amount of arsenic that an industrial plant can release into a river, but when that river gets to Ohio, those people have no recourse if there is no Federal standard.

In that case, how much arsenic you can release into the river is properly a federal matter, if and only if the river flows through more than one state; because you haven't got an Enclosed Space anymore. On the other hand, if the river had its source and estuary in Pennsylvania {Penn. may be landlocked. Don't flame me for this. Can you name the landlocked counties in this country?} and did not pass outside your state's borders, then it would be nobody else's business but Pennsylvania's how much arsenic you were dumping in it ..... at least, not until it washed up on someone else's shores.

The point is that if an action and its consequences can be contained within a smaller unit {family / school / workplace / estate / city / county / region / state}, then they should be dealt with entirely within that small unit. And for any larger unit to interfere, would constitute an excess of authority on their part.

Re:Um, So what?

[Lord Kano]

Canadian or European what? I presume you aren't talking about me because you should already know where I'm from, just from my e-mail address.

I have a pitt.edu email address, but I have never attended nor worked for the University of Pittsburgh. You having a European email address is not positive proof of your origin.

On the other hand, if the river had its source and estuary in Pennsylvania {Penn. may be landlocked. Don't flame me for this. Can you name the landlocked counties in this country?}

My knowledge of European geography is sufficiently poor that I wouldn't berate you for not knowing all of the tributaries of our Mississippi river.

But I don't think that this example applies either, because once that river empties into the Ocean, that hypothetical arsenic would become the concern of every other state (hell even the concern of other countries).

The point that I'm making is that not only does the conditions within one entity have an impact on those that border and contain it, but our system of government allows the Federal government authority to control many, MANY activities. When our country was founded, there was a great debate between federalists and anti-federalists, for the most part the federalists won.

LK

The Supremacy Clause

[David Hume]

Supercedes federal copyright law in North Carolina?

I doubt it, although Lexmark would be a fool to push it.

Good point. Consider the application of Article VI of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause:

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

See:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitu ti on.articlevi.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/ article06/

As FindLaw explains:

The Operation of the Supremacy Clause

When Congress legislates pursuant to its delegated powers, conflicting state law and policy must yield.7 Although the preemptive effect of federal legislation is best known in areas governed by the commerce clause, the same effect is present, of course, whenever Congress legislates constitutionally. And the operation of the supremacy clause may be seen as well when the authority of Congress is not express but implied.

[Footnote 7] Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 210 -211 (1824). See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 112 S.Ct. 2608 (1992); Morales v. TWA, 112 S.Ct. 2031 (1992); Maryland v. Lousiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977).

See http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article 06/02.html#4

Why not?

[unixwin]

If Lexmark (or HP or whoever) makes a product and they say that for warranty purposes you have to use their own crappy ink/toner -- all this upfront, I don't see a big deal why it is a consumer victory as touted. I surely agree that a refill helps in cost cutting, but I have also seen tons of printers (both inkjet and laser) with ink/toner spilt all over their innards just because ppl didn't want use a decent cartridge / toner. This is when they bring their product in for warranty "replacement" since their ink/toner is "smudging", "not printing right" , "sucks" or something of that nature.

As long as they let the consumer know this in advance and you have a choice not to buy this product no one is in trouble are they?

Ofcourse you may not have much choice for buying from someone besides Lexmark & Canon & HP but then thats a DIFFERENT problem .....

Re:Why not?

[rootofevil]

funny you mention that, because most of the time the replacements that peple buy (generic ink, toner, etc) are usually crappier than what the MFR provides (which is one reason its more expensive).

Re:Why not?

[Aadain2001]

But shouldn't the consumer have the ability to void their warranty? Right now, I can take my hard drive out, pull the lid off, and sharpen a pencil on the platters while it is spinning. My warrenty is shot to hell and so is my drive, but because it is my hardware I should have the right to screw with it like that.

What these printing companies want to do is prevent you from even trying! There are good reasons to prevent the user from doing something that is physically dangerous, but preventing them from doing something that will only void their warranty is just Not Nice(tm). If I want to refill my ink cartrige from a thirdparty, I should be allowed to. I just can't go crying to the printer company when it starts printing poorly.

The ONLY reason the companies are trying to inforce this is to protect their profit margins. Most of their profit is from ink, which people need to buy over and over. So sell the printer cheap since most people don't buy new printers very often and then charge an arm and a leg for the one thing that they do need to buy often. Makes good business sense. But they want to US Government to step in and say "No one is allowed to mess with their business model. Anyone who does, has to face me". Businesses that can't stay afloat without these kind of government protections just shouldn't exist, IMHO.

Re:Why not?

[nolife]

Do you have a warranty details for the cheaper Lexmark printers? I can not find anything on thier web site without entering a serial number (how convienent), Officemax has 1 year listed but does not go into details. If the warranty is only 90 days. That is one hell of a short warranty to claim replacement inks are a major factor of returns. 1 year might be a little different.
I assume that anything but Lexmark RFID tagged paper will be next, what if non Lexmark paper causes a jam and breaks the 1/64 inch think plastic guides.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which can be REAL fun since you can not even read the warrenty till you OPEN the box. But guess what they are tapped shut. Stores frown on you cutting open their boxes. Oh so you buy it anyway (what the hell..) Oh dont agree with that warranty? Take it back right. GOOOOOOOOD LUCK. You opened that box. Some places will not take it back. Its part of THEIR terms of agreement on the back of the sales slip. So now I am stuck with a printer that has carts that cost 50 bucks (they raised it, bastards!). I can not return it because the store will not take it back. All because basicly I have to agree to something blind.

Its a sort of 'you can take this mission, but we will not tell you what it is.'

Kind of off topic..

[ozzmosis]

I don't really print a lot of stuff so I just bought my first replacement ink cartage for my printer of 4years about a week ago, And my surprise the ink cartage was 32$!

What makes ink cart rages so high in price? Supply and demand or does it really cost that much to make one.

Re:Kind of off topic..

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging by the rest of the thread, I'd say it was pretty obvious what the concensus is...

Since you haven't read it... the prices are kept artificially high by manufacturers who put in stupid "copyright" chips into the cartridges to prevent competition.

Re:Kind of off topic..

[KUHurdler]

What is this device people keep referring to? A Printer? never heard of it.

If you read the post above this parent...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

You'll see that it probably doesn't even apply to North Carolina

Aren't there enough laws?

[Sean80]

I don't know about this. Every time I walk down the street I'm sure there are about a thousand laws governing my behaviour, most of which I'm not even aware of.

Is it really the job of government to pass such narrow, precise laws like this? Or, instead, should they be passing higher-level laws which a) most of us can even keep in our heads to start with and b) cover a whole lot of smaller, more specific cases?

Re:Aren't there enough laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

For example:
Do as thou wilt, but harm no one.

Re:Aren't there enough laws?

[mcrbids]

Every time I walk down the street I'm sure there are about a thousand laws governing my behaviour, most of which I'm not even aware of.

In a society without laws, the arbitrary rule of power governs activity. Don't piss off the guy with power, and do everything you can to become the guy with power, or he'll step on you.

Laws are designed to protect the "little people" from those with power, since the guy with the gun now has to adhere to the law rather than his/her whim.

Add too many laws, however, and this falls back down to "might makes right". I've had a police officer shake a Vehicle Code box at me while exclaiming " I could pretty much arrest you for anything I like with this! ".

Yes, we have lawmakers, and perhaps that's the problem. They should be lawkeepers or lawmaintainers and should be viewed as such.

Why is there more honor in getting a law passed than in getting a law repealed?

It's illegal to kill a mouse in the state of California without a hunting license. It's illegal to cross a street in a motorcar in Michigan without firing a rifle. It's also illegal to fire a rifle within 300 yards of a house, making truly legal motoring in Michigan a difficult venture.

It's illegal to possess a nuclear weapon in my hometown, for example - carries a $500 fine.

Yes, there are too many laws, and we've long ago reached a point of arbitrary enforcement - which tips the scale of justice back towards those with power.

Re:Aren't there enough laws?

[Pig Hogger]

It's illegal to possess a nuclear weapon in my hometown, for example - carries a $500 fine.

Is a peashooter loaded with an olive pit classified as a nuclear weapon????

Proud North Carolinian

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey I'm prooud that my legislature had the balls to do something like this. Hopefully they will stand up for Red Hat too which is in Raleigh if MS or SCO ever tries to come after them

I wonder...

[singularity]

I wonder how many consumers get to the point where they realize that buying a new printer each time is about as effective as trying to buy OEM ink cartridges.

I was in Best Buy yesterday, and they had an inkjet printer on sale for $39. It has been a while since I bought an inkjet cartridge (company supplied laser printer), but I believe it was almost that expensive.

That is the problem with a highly competitive razor/razor-blade model - as soon as the razors get really cheap due to competition, you get the the point where you start competing with the blades in price.

I wonder how long before you see "intro" ink cartridges (with only like 25% filled) being supplied with the original printer?

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of them already do this. It has been standard practice for years with certain laser printer manufacturers. It was happening back in 1994 when I worked at a consumer electronics retail store.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

You already do. Well, maybe not 25%, but ~50-70% full...

With prices on inkjet printers and inkjet cartridges the way they are now, I'm finding it more economical to just buy brand new whole printers and then dumping it for a new one when it jams or runs out of ink (I usually buy when they have a rebate or are under $30).
I've got 5 used inkjet printers in my garage alone.

Re:I wonder...

[RollingThunder]

I wonder how long before you see "intro" ink cartridges (with only like 25% filled) being supplied with the original printer?
I think three or four years ago?

Re:I wonder...

[swmccracken]

I wonder how long before you see "intro" ink cartridges (with only like 25% filled) being supplied with the original printer?

HP have been doing this for a while. 20mL cartridges with the printer instead of the normal 40 mL

HP's combo cartridges

[RickyRay]

HP inkjet printers don't have ink cartridges. They instead have cartridges with both print heads and ink. Which is why nobody sells non-HP cartridges; they don't have any legal way to do the print heads. This legislation finally gets past that, but it would have to be a federal law to provide enough scale so anyone could create such a product (unless a group in NC started selling HP-compatible cartridges to the rest of the country, which isn't going to happen).

Hopefully this initiative will get other states to create similar new laws. Obviously the states that manufacture HP and other printers will be the ones who try to block anything.

Re:HP's combo cartridges

[MsGeek]

There are people who sell remanufactured HP cartridges. I would never rely on a remanufactured HP color cartridge (they tend to have cross-contaminated ink, where the yellow might be greenish because some cyan leaked in, for example) but I use remanufactured black cartridges happily. They are all over the place. Even Wal*Mart has 'em, from NCR.

Re:HP's combo cartridges

[EvanED]

I can verify this... I just bought one (black) about 5 days ago. It was $20 as opposed to the original $30.

What happened to free enterprise?

[pinky42]

In past, the U.S. has been reluctant to mess around with the free market. What's going on here? Most consumers understand the concept of voting with their pocketbook. If a company screws you around, you stop buying their product. I think the rise of Japanese car makers over American is a demonstration of that principle. Let the market punish Lexmark.

Re:What happened to free enterprise?

[CausticWindow]

Yeah, free markets are nice. The US has killed a lot of people for their free market ideology.

But when it comes to steel, there shall be no fucking free market.

Hypocrites.

Re:What happened to free enterprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. has *never* been reluctant to mess around with 'free' market. Lots of rhetoric about it, especially if someone else is mucking about, but the proof is in the pudding --- the U.S. has consistently fucked with markets *whenever* someone with leverage thought (correctly or no) there was gain in it.

Constitution be damned!

[Compulawyer]

Seems like North Carolina forgot about a little thing in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause. When the Fed Gov't has been granted the power to legislate in an area, conflicting or inconsistent state laws are preempted by federal laws and are rendered useless.

Simply put, NC can legislate all it wants, but as long as the DMCA (or other conflicting federal statute) is on the books, any laws they write aren't worth the refilled ink they are printed with. (Pardon the bad pun, but I couldn't resist.)

abusing copyright for restraint of trade

[Eric Smith]

What Lexmark is doing seems similar to what Sega did with later versions of their Genesis game console. The Genesis refused to run cartridges that didn't contain the trademarked word "SEGA" at a particular address. Sega apparently even has a patent on that security system (TMSS). When Accolade made cartridges containing that work, Sega sued. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this violated the Lanham act, because Sega deliberately designed the Genesis to require that trademark to be present regardless of the actual manufacturer of the cartridge. Thus Sega was to blame for the abuse of their own trademark.

The Lexmark inkjet cartridge problem is based on abusing copyright rather than trademark, but it seems quite possible that a court would find that because Lexmark has unnecessarily forced their competitors to use their copyright in order to make a compatible cartridge, they are to blame for the resulting copyright infringement.

Re:abusing copyright for restraint of trade

[Anonymous Coward]

or...

some one wouldn't give me thier money when i told them to give it all to me. so then i'm forced to use illegal methods to gain the money, so i kill the person and claim they left me with no other choise.

think about it...

Re:abusing copyright for restraint of trade

[Eric Smith]

There's a major difference between making a product for sale by mutual consent, and demanding that someone give you money. The former is an activity that enjoys some legal protection in the form of laws banning restraint of trade.

Re:abusing copyright for restraint of trade

[jeffkjo1]

The problem with this case, that makes it very unique, is that Lexmark isn't saying its copyright infringement, they're saying its the DMCA for breaking encryption. However, you do bring up a very interesting point.

Thwack!

[August_zero]

Its a bit of a tug-o-war on that. Specific laws like this seem to only chip away at the larger problems. But larger, more general laws leave a lot of room for interpertation and or abuse. (insert the name of your favorite blanket regulations here)

I hear ya though, there has to be a better way than addressing each and every case. Maybe, if law makers would go after the DMCA itself, rather than running around and trying to filter through all of its vast twisting tendrils individualy. This is a good first step though. Maybe more will follow suit, and maybe eventualy, somebody in congress will see the DMCA for what it really is...

Re:Thwack!

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the best way should be to pass the more general type of law, and use case law to determine the specifics.
Unfortunately, that relies on the judges making sane decisions...

Politics is finally always local - NC and Static

[leoaugust]

It had to happen in North Carolina, because politics is ultimately about local issues. Static Control Components of Sanford, (close to Raleigh) employs 1200, and might even more if business grows. The Company had enough pull in the State to get the law passed.

And I think this should be a lesson for other issues too ... Abstractions have to come down to one or few test cases where the rubber hits the road .... guess RIAA's thousands points of lawsuits will also meet such a fate from the localities where the lawsuits draw first blood.

I would be foolish enough to say to RIAA "Bring 'em on" but I think that they should expect the unexpected when the finally go for it.

Just a thought

[wozster]

Last time I checked Canon doesn't sue 3rd party competitors
& uses a seperate tank for each color (less waste)
& doesn't throw around the DMCA
& tells you to check your ink level by LOOKING AT THE CARTRIDGE (as it should be).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my recent research I found Canon to be the most reasonable (yes, I hated them as much as everyone else 5 years ago).

Re:Just a thought

[EnglishTim]

I have a Canon S500, and it has a system that detects when the ink is about to run out and when the ink has run out. I'm always surprised at how many prints I get between it telling me the ink is low and when it refuses to print any more, but it does give you some time to get around to getting some new cartridges. When the cartridge has expired, There doesn't seem to be very much ink left, although it is a bit difficult to tell - the cartridges are full of a cotton wool-like substance, presumably to stop the ink sloshing about. I've never had any bad prints as result of ink running out, so it seems they leave enough ink in to ensure that your last print will always be good, which can be a good or a bad thing, depending on what you want.

I've not tried refilling the cartridges yet.

Excuse me but...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an artificial situation created by a novel use of intellectual property. IP is gov't interference for specific purposes of supporting certain business activities, much like a subsidy. When someone gets tricky and uses it for an unanticipated purpose, the default gov't action should be to plug the hole, exactly as if someone found a loophole in subsidy legislation and managed to collect when it wasn't intended for them.

That's not additional gov't interference, that's reduction of gov't interference. In this case, legislating is backing off to let the free market decide.

BTW, yeah. Lexmark printers are trash.

Bill Doesn't Address DMCA Problem

[David Hume]

It appears the bill doesn't address the DMCA problem. As the article states:

RALEIGH, N.C. -- The state House agreed Tuesday to Senate changes to a bill that would give printer owners the right to refill any printer ink cartridge, voiding purchase agreements that ban the practice.

(emphasis added) http://www.heraldsun.com/state/6-371743.html

It appears the North Carolina law simply declares void contractual agreements not to refill printer ink cartridges as being against the public policy of the state. While this might be necessary for such refilling to be legal, it does not appear that this law is by itself sufficient to make it legal.

The law does not address the DMCA problem. That is, even if in North Carolina a contractual provision cannot prevent someone from refilling ink cartridges because said provision is void under this North Carolina law, this doesn't prevent a printer manufacturer from filing a DMCA claim against a company that makes the refilling kits.

Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI of the Constitution), the State of North Carolina may have been unable to address the DMCA issue, and indeed may have recognized that fact. Article VI provides:

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

See:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitu ti on.articlevi.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/ article06/

As FindLaw explains:

The Operation of the Supremacy Clause

When Congress legislates pursuant to its delegated powers, conflicting state law and policy must yield.7 Although the preemptive effect of federal legislation is best known in areas governed by the commerce clause, the same effect is present, of course, whenever Congress legislates constitutionally. And the operation of the supremacy clause may be seen as well when the authority of Congress is not express but implied.

[Footnote 7] Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 210 -211 (1824). See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 112 S.Ct. 2608 (1992); Morales v. TWA, 112 S.Ct. 2031 (1992); Maryland v. Lousiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977).

See http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article 06/02.html#4

I have to wonder if this legislation will accomplish anything. I also have to wonder if the legislature knew that it might not accomplish anything when they passed it.

Still a silly fight

[unicorn]

The thing that continues to be overlooked by the editors here:

The chipped cartridges, are NOT the only option for these printers.

There are 2 sets of cartridges that Lexmark sells. One set, is chipped for single use, and then you're obligated to return the cartridge back to Lexmark for them to refurbish, etc. They call it a "pre-bate" basically they are rebating you for returning the empty, at the time of purchase.

If you want to reuse/refill, etc yourself, then you can buy the non-prebated inks. And then you can just go hog wild.

Caveat Emptor.

Re:Still a silly fight

[anon*127.0.0.1]

Except that either way, you're forced to buy a Lexmark product. Thats the problem.. that Lexmark is using the DMCA to force consumers to buy their ink cartridges from Lexmark, and Lexmark only.

The NC legislature got it wrong

[VORNAN-20]

As far as I can tell from reading the description of the law (IANAL), they made it illegal to enforce the ban on cartridge refills, and it probably does conflict with federal law. What they should have done, with no conflict with the federal statute, was to ban the sale of printers with that sort of restriction. AFAIK a state can ban the sale of various items on whatever grounds it feels are correct, and the feds have nothing to say about it.

I worked for a printer manufacturer

[wift]

The company I worked for had to pull out of the consumer market(both ink and toner based) because they couldn't keep losing money on lost revenue due to generic cartridges. So now there is less choice in the toner and ink jet printers.

My last ink jet screwed up because of the damn refillable cartridges. My current ink jet works great with name-brand cartridges.

Re:I worked for a printer manufacturer

[EmagGeek]

That's what they get for dumping the printer on the assumption of higher revenue later on ink. It's designed specifically to rip the customer off for even more money on a piece of garbage product. It's a stupid business model as well because it's too damn risky. If you lose, you had it coming.

It's the same thing as charging $5 for a car, but then charging $100/gal for gas, and saying that you're only allowed to buy gas at the dealer from which you bought the car. The idea is you'll make much much more over the life of the car than if you charged $20k for the car and the usual $1.49 for gas.

Personally, I'd like to be able to buy gas at any station I want to.

doesn't have to

[Trepidity]

They don't have to try to force Lexmark to allow others to use their copyrights (which would be an attempt to supersede federal copyright law) -- instead they can simply say that it is illegal for printer manufacturers to make their cartridges such that copyrighted material is necessary for their operation. Then nobody could copy Lexmark's cartridges, but they couldn't legally sell them in the state either. But their copyright would still be protected.

Ink is the new gold

[felonious]

I understand why these companies want to prevent others from stealing this cash cow. You're talking about huge amounts of money just for ink. I can't remember where I read it but there was a story about ink being 3 times more expensive than a fine wine or something like that. Maybe it was here? It's fucking ink so I don't know why it's so expensive.

It could be all of the companies in collusion with one another to keep the prices high.

We should boycott Lexmark and while we're at it boycott Epson for being busted by joint tests by several European consumer groups indicating that Epson ink cartridges prematurely block printers from churning out more pages even when there is enough ink to keep going.

Here's the story on that con

I think it'd be less painful to my pocket book if they could figure out how to turn my blood into ink from a simple IV...

Re:Ink is the new gold

[forkboy]

You're absolutely right...there is no good reason for ink to cost what it does. I've heard from several friends of mine that have worked for Lexmark and HP out here in Colorado that their printing divisions are ink companies first and printer companies second.

Here is a somewhat amusing comparison on the per gallon cost of various liquids. It's not very statistically accurate as it doesn't take into account bulk discounts and stuff, but it is roughly accurate and quite amusing. Ink is 7th on the list, below things like mercury, scorpion venom, and LSD, but above things like GHB, human blood, and penicillin.

Re:Ink is the new gold

[SnappingTurtle]

I can't remember where I read it but there was a story about ink being 3 times more expensive than a fine wine

Tastes a lot worse, too.

A bunch of toxic garbage

[yintercept]

The whole idea in the current market is to sell cheap printers that become mechanisms to sell expensive ink jet cartridges. The goal is to sell as many expensive cartridges as possible; so you find marketers playing stupid games like not filling the cartridges to capacity, etc..

The result of this is simply a great deal of garbage that consumers have to pay to haul away.

I doubt that toner and ink cartridges are really the most environmentally friendly things in the landfills. I suspect the fewer we toss out the better.

My brain fart du jour is that it would be great if industries had to pick up the tab for the garbage they create. Lenmark and other competitors in the industry would have to pay a disposal fee that could be distributed to landfills to cover costs.

If industry had to pay for the waste up front, there would be a hope that they would design products that create less waste product.

As you point out, the industry is really about putting ink (which is relatively inexpensive) on paper. All the extra packaging, cartridge parts, etc., that get produced and sold in this game are waste.

Re:A bunch of toxic garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

it would be great if industries had to pick up the tab for the garbage they create

This is the law in several (every?) European countries. When things like refridgerators die in Europe, the manufacturor is responsible for picking it up - as a result, it is very easy to take apart into component pieces, which are then reused or recycled.

Re:A bunch of toxic garbage

[len_harms]

No like most industries that have a new thing levied against them. They will pass the cost on to us. We would end up paying for that. I already do. Its called taxes where I live. Some people actually pay to have garbage hauled away, and are billed every month.

My favorite life extension for a printer cart was the old ribbon carts, and a can of WD-40. They would work for a long time till you either put too much oil on the ribbon or the ribbon ate itself.

Recently my dad replaced one of those 'freebe' printers. I got tired of him calling me up every week yelling that it was not working. Finally I talked him into a new printer. The FIRST thing I showed him about buying a new printer is pick the one with the cheap carts. He has loved the thing ever since. It cost him an extra 100 bucks for it the thing. But he is a printing mad man now! It doesnt get stuck. He can actually see the ink in the cart and tell when its empty. Hell he probably could refill the things forever considering what they are. And best of all they do not cost 40 bucks for 1 black cart that dries out in 2 weeks.

Re:A bunch of toxic garbage

[mookie-blaylock]

If industry had to pay for the waste up front, there would be a hope that they would design products that create less waste product

Unfortunately, while it sounds like a good idea, I doubt you'd see it play out that way. They'd make a minor redesign to the cartridges, perhaps allowing just a slight boost in the life of the cartridge (not enough to hurt products) so it could be marketed as new and/or environmentally friendly. Then, to cover the costs of the supposed innovation (really, to cover the costs of their disposal fee), they'd raise the price by $5/cartridge, covering the disposal fee and netting a tidy additional profit.

Re:A bunch of toxic garbage

[deblau]

My brain fart du jour is that it would be great if industries had to pick up the tab for the garbage they create. Lenmark and other competitors in the industry would have to pay a disposal fee that could be distributed to landfills to cover costs.

So you're in favor of $50-75 ink cartridges?

Re:A bunch of toxic garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

> So you're in favor of $50-75 ink cartridges?

Yes, if that's a reasonable estimate of the environmental impact of the waste produced. Anything less means that we're trading clean environment for cheap ink cartridges.

razor blades?

[Anonymous Coward]

What keeps some other company from making cheap razor blades compatible with my Mach 3 razor?

price of inkjet cartridges vs printer

[magical1]

This whole industry is based upon one thing. Everyone knows that these companys literally give you the printer only to make the money back on the refill cartridges. If they were to market the printers differntly, go back to making quality machines rather than things that print for a few years then die, and aren't fixing cause it's cheaper to replace we and the enviornment would win. We would get cheaper ink cartridges, and higher quality ink jet printers, thus lasting us a lot longer and saving our landfills and being green in the same process. If the companys were even smarter, they would have a exchange policy for old cartridges, or offer refill kits themselves.

Re:price of inkjet cartridges vs printer

[whatch durrin]

...they would have a exchange policy for old cartridges...

The last laser toner cartridge I bought (HP) came with a nice shipping package and a prepaid UPS return label. All you had to do was throw the old cartridge in, slap on the label, and throw it in a UPS drop box. Pretty slick, if you're really concerned about being green.

Re:price of inkjet cartridges vs printer

[Anonymous Coward]

Lexmark does the same thing. There's so much ignorance about all this, it's insane. Lexmark sells unrefillable cartridges cheaper than refillable ones. You're free to buy the more expensive ones and refill them. Or... you can buy the cheap one and mail back the one it's replacing with the UPS label in the box. Either way, Lexmark, HP, et al are doing what they can to keep you from putting the stuff in the landfill.

Remember: Ink is not where the money is. It's toner. That's a fact. Consumers print nothing compared to what businesses do. Just look at the development dollars that the printer companies put in consumer versus business products.

Re:price of inkjet cartridges vs printer

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Lexmark sells me basically the SAME printer cartridge without the lockout "feature" (but makes me pay more money), that makes everything all right. Of course, if Lexmark had any smarts, the company would price the non-contract cartridge high enough that refilling would end up costing more money.

I don't like companies abusing contract law and the DMCA to prop up their shitty business models.

Truth is, printer manufacturers deserve to lose money when they get printers returned after people like Jim Bob decide that the manufacturer's ink is too expensive and refill black ink cartridges with used motor oil.

Re:price of inkjet cartridges vs printer

[Anonymous Coward]

If the companys were even smarter, they would have a exchange policy for old cartridges

You mean like Lexmark does?

Re:price of inkjet cartridges vs printer

[yoshi_mon]

While I don't know the #'s, whenever I have had the displeasure of shopping for a cheap ink-jet it always seems to me that while cheap, you are surely getting what you pay for. (A cheap printer.)

Thus, my gut feeling is that they proably are breaking even, if not making a tiny profit, on these cheap-o-ink-jet printers that we are talking about but does that make it ok for them to have a 500% markup on ink carts? (Again, I am not in that part of the biz so I don't know about my #'s but damn they sure do mark up that ink alot.)

If they were doing nominal price markups on ink carts would messy ink refill kits be such an issue?

Re:price of inkjet cartridges vs printer

[Anonymous Coward]

They are most definitely not literally giving you the printer. You still pay, right?

Wrong

[unicorn]

It's actually a case of using a technological means, to enforce a contract.

The cartridges in question are sold at a discounted price, called a Prebate. You get a cheaper cartridge with the understanding that you will return it when empty, to Lexmark. If you pay for a full price cartridge, you're more than welcome to refill it, at will.

It's a prefectly legitmate means of enforcing the terms of sale that the consumer agreed to, when he bought the discounted ink.

Re:Wrong

[Eric Smith]

What contract? Does the consumer sign a piece of paper agreeing to this? Or is it a shrink-wrap contract? If the latter, is the package well-marked so that the consumer knows that he or she is "agreeing" to these terms by opening the package or using the cartridge? Or is it buried in fine print somewhere? Do the stores actually carry the "full price cartridge" in addition to the ripoff ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H discount cartridge?

I've never seen these cartridges, but I tend to doubt that Lexmark has gone to any effort to educate consumers that they are entering into any sort of contract.

There should be a new federal law...

[jonwil]

That makes it illegal for company x to use the DMCA to prevent a 3rd party company making hardware or software compatible with company x's hardware.

Re:There should be a new federal law...

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, the DMCA should be repealed altogether. It has done nothing good to foster creativity (like the copyright laws were intended to do) and has only been a source of corporate abuse.

What's good for the goose.

[dmaxwell]

Or you could just not buy a lexmark printer. Let the market descide, don't legislate to death.

I would agree with you except for one thing. Lexmark is using the DMCA to stop people from refilling ink cartridges. There's a crypto widget in cartridge that contains copyrighted info. Can't duplicate it. Can't reset it. Do so and it's "legislated to death time". The best outcome would be taking the DMCA behind the barn and having either the Supreme Court or Congress shoot it through the head. Since the media conglomerates and electronics monopolists won't permit the death of their dream come true, I'll take what North Carolina is doing as a consolation prize.

Hey Man, This Is The South

[istartedi]

They should just secede.

A less drastic step would be to simply levy a state tax on non-refillable cartridges and/or printers that use them. States levy widely varrying taxes on stuff all the time. Virginia's tobacco tax is a heck of a lot lower than say... New York's.

So if the issue comes up, they should just re-write it as a really high tax on printers that use non-refillable cartridges. There's precedent for the tax, and precedent for the tax widely varying from state-to-state. However, I don't think there is precedent for the tax being so high that it effectively kills the market. Anybody know?

Re:Hey Man, This Is The South

[iendedi]

So if the issue comes up, they should just re-write it as a really high tax on printers that use non-refillable cartridges... bla bla..

Aren't you forgetting something? This would require a pretty dramatic beuracracy to oversee the application of this tax. By whom and how is it determined that a manufacturer's printer cannot use aftermarket toner or ink? If the agreements allow for it, but logic circuitry is embedded in the manufacturer's ink cartridges (as is the case with Lexmark), in what way could the tax be applied?

Solving this problem through the application of new taxes would be on the same scale of silliness as buying windows for all of your employees so that they can use email and word processing (i.e. The solution is an order of magnitude more trouble than the problem it is solving).

My god YOU are an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so missing the point.

Lexmark printers come with ink cartridges. They are included in the price. They didn't rule that this was illegal, nor should it be illegal. ...nor has anyone said it should be illegal.

However, they also design their printers such that it's impossible to refill the cartridges and, through an unintended consequence of copyright law, illegal for anyone else to make compatible ones.

The market cannot punnish lexmark

[Anonymous Coward]

When all of the manufacturers of a good or service work in collusion, either explicitly or implicitly, you can not vote with your pocketbook other than refusing to purchase said good or service at all.

Also, if LexMark can use the DMCA to stifle competition, it won't matter if Toyota makes replacement ink cartridges -- they can't be legally imported.

Prohibitive tariffs

[yerricde]

I don't think there is precedent for the tax being so high that it effectively kills the market.

They happen all the time. Ask anybody who has studied international economics about "prohibitive tariffs," and you'll learn the full story.

Did SCC do it by the book?

[Anonymous Coward]

When IBM clone makers reverse engineered IBMs BIOS, they had a team look at the code and write a decription. Then another team read the decription and wrote new code, without having been tainted by seeing the copyrighted code. If SCC used this technique, they shouldn't have to worry about copyright infringement of Lexmark products. If the DMCA still allows prosecution, then there is something wrong with this law, and it should be revised. If they simply copied Lexmarks code, however, that is copyright infringement, and should be illegal, even if Lexmarks's practives sound shady.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Lexmark can't do it, why can Apple?

Re:MOD PARENT UP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple do not use technological and legal methods that prevent you from running Linux or BSD on an Apple computer. Lexmark do use technological and legal methods to prevent you from using someone elses toner cartrige with their printers. No one is saying that Lexmark should ship someone elses toner cartriges with their printers, and no one is suggesting that Apple should ship other OS's with their hardware.

Do what was advocated with copy-protected CDs

[whatch durrin]

For a while, people advocated returning copy-protected CDs to the retailer. The same should be done with inkjet printers.

Get one at Wal-Mart and when the ink runs out - return it and get a new one, complete with a new ink cartridge. Wal-mart employees could care less. Just give some lame-ass excuse.

If manufacturers want to play this game, let's play! HP & Lexmark will have a new definition for "loss leader."

Re:Do what was advocated with copy-protected CDs

[NeoSkandranon]

You can't have it both ways. Either music is different from physical goods or it's not.

What gives you the right to buy an item, deplete it, and then return it for a refund? If a manufacturer were selling shampoo in 2/3rds full bottles, I daresay people would have a problem with you using it all, then returning empty bottles for a refund.

Re:Do what was advocated with copy-protected CDs

[whatch durrin]

What gives me the right is the return policies of stores like Wal-Mart.

I didn't say it was a "moral" thing to do, it's just tit-for-tat with HP/Lexmark.

What they're doing isn't illegal; what I propose doing isn't illegal, either.

Re:Do what was advocated with copy-protected CDs

[NeoSkandranon]

No, Wal Mart's return policy gives you the right to return merchandise that is defective or broken. The fact that you used all the ink up is fair indication that the printer is not broken.
You said yourself to make "some lame-ass excuse." (i.e., lie about it)--That means you know full well your reason for return is outside the scope of the return policy.

Re:Do what was advocated with copy-protected CDs

[whatch durrin]

Alright, I concede. I want to cheat the system.

Regardless, I think this would be an excellent way to send a message.

Re:Do what was advocated with copy-protected CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

Get one at Wal-Mart and when the ink runs out - return it and get a new one, complete with a new ink cartridge. Wal-mart employees could care less.

Yes, I'm sure they could care less, but that's not what you mean, is it? Jesus Christ on a Fucking Stick! English?! Do. You. Speak it?

Re:Do what was advocated with copy-protected CDs

[Powercntrl]

Regardless, I think this would be an excellent way to send a message.

Buying a printer, using all the ink and then returning it is stealing. I'm sure in the fine print for Wal-Mart's return policy it says you must return the item with all included accesories. Using the ink up means you kept something that isn't getting returned.

If you really wanted to send a message to Lexmark and keep the previous copy protected CD analogy relevent, you could simply buy a shitload of Lexmark printers (and claim they're for your office), open each box and add a note that says something along the lines of:

"This printer will not accept refilled ink cartredges due to a special protection chip. If you attempt to refill them, they will still appear to be empty and will not function. New Lexmark ink cartredges cost $(include price) and since these are your only option for continued operation of this printer, they can raise the price as high as they want. Hopefully after reading this information, you'll see this printer isn't the value you thought it was and will return it for a refund. - A friend"

Then tape the boxes back up and return them to Wal-Mart. Since Wal-Mart puts items that still seem new back out for sale, your message will be spread and you didn't even have to steal anything to do it.

Re:Do what was advocated with copy-protected CDs

[mfrank]

But for some of these systems, it'll stop working before the cartridge is empty.

"Hey, this printer is defective. It says it's out of ink, but there's still ink left in it!"

Re:Do what was advocated with copy-protected CDs

[NeoSkandranon]

Regardless, I think this would be an excellent way to send a message.

*that* I don't dispute ;) I do think it would be more ah, bold, to do as someone somewhere in this thread suggested and buy a TON of lexmarks, then return them citing recent articles on the DCMA scare tactics against ink refillers

Getting around supremacy

[yerricde]

Seems like North Carolina forgot about a little thing in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause.

In general, states can't nullify federal laws, but they can make federal laws much harder to enforce. For example, the City of Arcata banned compliance with the "optional" suggestions of the USAPATRIOT act.

Federal law, 17 USC 1201: "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." That is, you can't sell devices that defeat DRM.

Hypothetical state law: "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that contains one or more technological measures that effectively control access to a work, as defined in Title 17, United States Code, section 1201, if the device's packaging does not carry a conspicuous label that discloses the restrictions enforced by such measures." That is, you can't sell DRM that isn't labeled.

I don't see a supremacy problem here. The federal law bans black boxes; the state law merely requires labeling.

Re:Getting around supremacy

[MCZapf]

Hmmm, if the Federal law simply bans circumventing access controls, I'd like to see a state pass a law that bans the access control measures themselves.

Re:Getting around supremacy

[Compulawyer]

Some fine (but important) points:

The City of Arcata did not "ban" compliance with the Patriot Act. First, there was a RESOLUTION - a City's equivalent of a private person's opinion. Second, if provisons are "optional" then there is no conflict. The federal law is explicitly saying "we give you permission to do what you want with respect to these defined issues." A city cannot "ban" compliance with federal law.

Your "hypothetical" law does not conflict either and does NOT make federal law "harder to enforce." The Supremacy Clause ENSURES that nothin a state does can make it harder for federal law to be enforced. Federal law trumps state law. That's all there is to it.

What your hypothetical law does is impose some labeling requirements on a product. it does not conflict with the DMCA. Here's one that potentially DOES cause problems:

"No person shall make, use, or sell any device within the state that contains one or more technological measures that effectively control access to a work, as defined in Title 17, United States Code, section 1201." This has two major problems. First is the Commerce Clause - Congress is the only body that gets to regulate interstate commerce. This broad prohibition is an impermissible burden on commerce and would be invalidated.

Second, manufacturers can argue that the DMCA implicitly gives them the right to include access control technology, so the states cannot do anything restricting that right. Pure Supremacy Clause stuff here. Federal law says yes, state law says no, fed law wins.

Re:Getting around supremacy

[WCMI92]

States can regulate all INTRA state commerce.

They could ban the sale of DMCA crippled devices, for instance, within their state.

They could legislate the DMCA void within the state borders, for example.

I give an example.

Radar/laser detectors are legal, Federally. But, Virginia and DC call them illegal. So, it's illegal to sell them in VA or DC, even though they are legal everywhere else.

(note that VA rivals only OH as the pre-eminent speedtrap state)

You also can't use a radar/laser detector within their borders even if you are FROM a place where they are legal, and bough them there.

So, a state CAN make it illegal to sell chipped or crippled ink carts, or even to USE them inside their borders.

To rule otherwise makes anti-speed trap countermeasures legal everywhere ;)

Hey, you can't have it both ways. Unless you are a multinational megacorp, but I digress...

Re:Getting around supremacy

[yerricde]

The federal law is explicitly saying "we give you permission to do what you want with respect to these defined issues."

The point being that if a hole exists in a law's supremacy, some state or city is bound to exploit it.

Your "hypothetical" law does not conflict either

Entirely the point. It's possible to make DRM vendors' lives harder without violating the supremacy of the U.S. Code.

and does NOT make federal law "harder to enforce."

If a labeling provision were to become law in a few states, then products that invoke the DMCA (namely digital restrictions management devices) would have to carry a label in those states. This would raise consumer awareness of DRM and make it harder for vendors to sell DRM devices in those states. If nobody's buying DRM devices, then it's pretty hard to enforce the DMCA, no?

In addition, I'm guessing that it would prove more expensive for a national maker of DRM devices to label only those shipments going to a given state than to label every package in every state. According to Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope, this is the same reason that some food packages distributed outside of Pennsylvania are labeled "Reg. Penna Dept. Agr."

manufacturers can argue that the DMCA implicitly gives them the right to include access control technology, so the states cannot do anything restricting that right. Pure Supremacy Clause stuff here. Federal law says yes, state law says no, fed law wins.

Along similar lines, a manufacturer might argue that some federal law on the books implicitly gives it the right to sell devices that kill people, invalidating states' product safety laws.

Re:Getting around supremacy

[Compulawyer]

I don't know the details of VA and DC law because I am not a lawyer in either of those 2 jurisdictions (I'm admitted in MA, OH, and the USPTO). But I suspect that the law makes it illegal to use radar detectors to defeat law enforcement efforts, not merely to possess them.

The US Supreme Court, in a leading commerce clause case (sorry - I don't have the cite handy but trust me - it is required reading in Con Law in law school), stated that Congress could control a farmer growing wheat on his own land to make bread for his own family because of the effects on INTER-state commerce. How can this be? Because the Gov't gave him an allocation as part of efforts to control wheat supply. If he grows wheat in excess of that allocation for his family's use, then he won't buy bread. If he doesn't buy bread, the demand for bread diminishes. If that happens, it affects interstate commerce because the market is reduced and bread suppliers cannot sell as much. I am oversimplifying, but that is the rationale.

Nice try with the intrastate commerce argument. It's been tried before and failed. I think just about everyone would be hard-pressed to come up with an activity that is more intrastate in nature than a farmer growning his own food for his own family to eat. If the Commerce Clause allows Congress to reach that activity, the Feds can (and do!) regulate just about everything.

Re:Getting around supremacy

[Compulawyer]

If nobody's buying DRM devices, then it's pretty hard to enforce the DMCA, no?

No. There is a BIG difference between enforcing a law and causing some condition which prevents the law from being violated in the first place.

Along similar lines, a manufacturer might argue that some federal law on the books implicitly gives it the right to sell devices that kill people, invalidating states' product safety laws.

Ummm...no. Trust me on this one. Essentially, however, the right to sell a product does not conflict with product liability laws which are usually premised on some type of negligence theory (negligent design or manufacture). This area gets VERY complicated so I am going to end comment on this topic here.

Final point - yes, they could ARGUE that. And that simple argument would be frivolous.

Without labeling there is no consent

[yerricde]

making a product for sale by mutual consent

Unless the products that contain DRM are conspicuously labeled as such, how can you argue that the buyer had granted an informed consent? The labeling on a product, especially a consumer product, is the only place I can think of where a contract's Offer can be made.

One problem with Canon: interoperability

[yerricde]

Because of the practical design of Canon's print systems (replaceable print heads with reasonably-priced separate ink cartridges), I strongly recommend Canon inkjet printers to anybody who uses Windows and wants an inkjet printer. However, I've read that Canon has given no help in publishing enough documentation to let Microsoft's competitors develop drivers to make recent Canon inkjet printers work on operating systems other than Windows.

Protecting their Brand.

[jellomizer]

I have seen printers damaged from using 3rd Party Ink. Because they were using the cheap stuff and the fact that their printer broke. They decided that because their printer keeps on having trouble that they wont buy that printer again. While if they used the real ink the printer could have used for many more years. While there are good 3rd party Ink out their. But there are a bunch of Rip Offs that hurt the printer and this is like slander towards the printer maker.

Re:Protecting their Brand.

[jack torrence]

So, perhaps these printer companies should think about building a better product in the first place and then none of this would happen? Nobody decides that they are not going to buy a certain brand of automobile again because the second set of tires they buy to replace the original ones wear out too fast. So, you saying that the printer companies are the 'victims' Buddy, the subject matter here concerns printer companies that are themselves RIP-OFFs, not the 2nd party resuppliers, no matter how good or bad their refills are. Think it out. Get it together.

Re:Protecting their Brand.

[n_jed]

So, perhaps these printer companies should think about building a better product in the first place and then none of this would happen?

The people will just complain about how expensive printers are. Cheap printers aren't supposed to last 5 years. Consumers need to understand this.

Re:Protecting their Brand.

[Victa]

Not to mention the cost (to the printer manufacturer) of warranty work to repair damage caused by cheap shitty cartridges (or refills).

Re:Protecting their Brand.

[jellomizer]

Well Ill do a multi-stage rebuttal.

So, perhaps these printer companies should think about building a better product in the first place and then none of this would happen?

Well like other pieces of electronic equipment printers are a rather fine tuned system. The cost of expanding the printer so it can run off of anything is just crazy. Depending of the type of printer. Some Ink is to thick and jams the head. Others are to thin and can get mixed with other ink. For Solid Ink Printers the Ink needs to melt at a precise temperature and cool at an other. There are way to many variables to put into a $50 printer.

Nobody decides that they are not going to buy a certain brand of automobile again because the second set of tires they buy to replace the original ones wear out too fast..

You forget computers to most people are these "Magical things" that can think for themselves. So when any computer component breaks they assume it is due to bad design and not abuse on their end. And the Tire analogy is not the best one. It would more like a Car that is being gave bad gas, thus clogging up the fuel injectors in the engine. So people keep on going to that $1.00 a gallon shop and fill their car with this crud. Then after time it breaks down they figure that that brand of car was poorly built.
So, you saying that the printer companies are the 'victims' Buddy, the subject matter here concerns printer companies that are themselves RIP-OFFs, not the 2nd party resuppliers
I am not saying that they shouldn't lower their Ink prices. But if they lower them to much it would actually increase the third party ink. It is a simple concept. A lot people look at something and if it seems like it is a too good of a deal then they are worried about it. That is why they still sell a good amount of their own ink. Because of the price gap. But if they lowered their prices to be around the same. People will get the 3rd party ink because it is only a couple of bucks cheaper. And they would think to themselves. Well it is about the same price so Its probably the same thing and go with the one that is a little cheaper. I am sure the printer companies are selling their printers at a loss to make it up in ink sales, So a printer lasts 2-3 and it cost $50 years the ink sales help make up the loss of the product. You will be surprised on how little profit some of these companies make.

There is, but it's not enforced well

[yerricde]

The DMCA does contain such a provision, codified as 17 USC 1201(f), but the courts have in effect nullified it in Universal v. Reimerdes by refusing to recognize DeCSS as having been "reverse engineered for purposes of interoperability".

Let me get this straight

[kmweber]

So basically, Lexmark's not allowed to build its product the way it wants?

Sheesh, it's not like anyone's holding a gun to anyone's head forcing him to buy a Lexmark printer (or any printer, for that matter)!

Let Lexmark build its products the way it wants. Anyone's perfectly free to try to work around it and sell workarounds, as long as they don't misrepresent anything in the process.

If people don't like what Lexmark's doing, they simply won't buy Lexmark's product.

YOU CAN RUN LINUX ON SGI BOXES

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

For the uninformed out there. There is a distribution of linux that runs on an SGI Indy workstation. As well ever heard of the SGI Altix? Guess what It runs LINUX as its PRIMARY OS.

As well the L3 controllers of the Origin 3000 Supercomputer runs what???? LINUX.

Item you missed...

[rmdyer]

Somewhere you've glossed over the fact that companies that create disposable junk increase the wear and tear on our natural environment.

Consider printer ink which you "could" buy by the liter. Instead, now we've got to buy the box, the plastic sealing, and the heavy plastic ink cartridge.

Waste, pure waste. Lexmark should be held accountable!

+100

Re:Item you missed...

[pmz]

Consider printer ink which you "could" buy by the liter.

I prefer buying it by the keg. The downside is that my tooth-whitening budget has skyrocketed!

so what is a good one...

[zogger]

... in the lower bucks/cost category? One that works very well with linux, and gets good mileage with the ink?

Re:so what is a good one...

[caouchouc]

A personal laser printer.
You can get a good b&w one for about $300, and the toner lasts damn near forever.

Re:so what is a good one...

[Daengbo]

I replaced my venerable Z32 (which worked ok, BTW) with a used HP Laserfet 5L. I had refilled the ink in the Z32 twice, so had to buy a new cartridge (around 1200 Baht) and found the 5L for sale for 2500. It will save me a bundle in ink charges.

Re:so what is a good one...

[Gaccm]

$300?!?! buy used. I got an HP LaserJet 4L for $10 from a second hand store. A 7 yr old printer that can print text perfectly fine. While the slowness, lack of nice graphics, b&w only does bother me, i'm thankful for the many YEARS i get out of each toner cartridge. Actually, my mom bought the same printer when it first came out, and she has only had to replace the toner twice in those 7 years.

Re:so what is a good one...

[pmz]

A personal laser printer.
You can get a good b&w one for about $300, and the toner lasts damn near forever.

Yessiree. I've been using the toner in my Laserjet 6L for a solid five years, now.

I was also pretty suprised that it works just fine hooked up the parallel port of a Sun workstation (have to configure ghostscript as a Solaris print filter, though).

Re:so what is a good one...

[dissy]

Just to share my experence, I purchased a used HP 4mv used for almost $400 about 6 years ago (That was a good price 6 years ago) and a brand new toner cart which was $100 or so.
Gave it to one of my parents who has never once changed the toner cart on it, and it prints off roughly 200 pages a month every month for her billings, plus a few random pages here and there.
Text still comes out crisp and black, and it shows no signs of needing new toner anytime soon.
The things are built like tanks.

Solution

[cameldrv]

The laserjet 4 is prone to having the "accordion" jams where the paper gets jammed, and when you pull it out from the back, it is folded in an accordion shape. You can fix this yourself by installing new upper rollers. The kits are about $25, and it takes about a half hour to install them. Since I did this to my printer, it hasn't jammed.

Re:Solution

[EvanED]

Thank you very much... I will pass this information on.

*opens Evolution for mail*

You suck

[Sabalon]

I read you last work on the XHJ45 cartridge...you are such a hack...it was an obvious rip-off of the old CR-443 bubble jet chip. Maybe when you learn to write some original chip's you'll make it big, but until then, you'll just be another hack.

Now what does Lexmark do?

[anon*127.0.0.1]

Do they just stop selling cartridges in North Carolina altogether, and cede all the sales to clone cartridge manufacturers? Do they make special cartridge just for sale in NC? Do they just keep up business as usual and dare NC to come after them?

Re:Now what does Lexmark do?

[Anonymous Coward]

no the law just removes the clause that you must buy carts from them. And that you can not refill carts you buy from them.

It does not remove or change the way that lexmark creates its carts.

It basicly removes a way that lexmark could sue a largish (1200 people) company just outside of ralegh.

So in other words someone got paid off to make this happen.

It would actually work different from that

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't work like you said, the industry would not make more efficient cartdriges, they would actually make more expensive cartdriges in a way that you would be the one paying for the garbage tax.

Where are the environmentalists...

[phorm]

when you need them. Because people have exactly this type of attitude. Buy printer... printer sucks down in... find out new ink (colour+b&w) costs nearly as much as the printer, or even more.

Printer ends up in landfill... I'm sure there are a lot of non-environmentally friendly components.

So why aren't/weren't the environmentalists all over Lexmark's ass for this... they know it's what happens?!

Re:Where are the environmentalists...

[gilesjuk]

Exactly, due to the low cost of printers there's pretty much no second hand market for inkjets.

Re:Where are the environmentalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

They work at HP.

HP Recycling Program

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/envir on ment/recycle/index.html

Mod this up. Several posts complain about this problem but nobody looked it up. If you really care about such things, this is an important piece of information when buying hardware. HP's recycling programs lead the industry.

Re:My god YOU are an idiot

[jtdubs]

Maybe you didn't read the parent post carefully enough...

He made TWO points.

The first was that you should be able to buy a Mac without having to pay for OS X. The second was that you should be able to make clones.

The first was the one that I was rebuking in my post. The second is the one you are talking about.

The second point is also bunk however. It is impossible to draw a good parallel between printers/ink and computers/operating systems. And, anyway, as Apple is not involved in anti-competitive behavior of note as they are a niche player.

Justin Dubs

Never buy ink again...

[Anonymous Coward]

www.inksupply.com

I haven't bought ink in so long it makes my head hurt.

unlawful undercutting, DRM, DMCA, etc

[gad_zuki!]

> Or you could just not buy a lexmark printer. Let the market descide, don't legislate to death.

A take a couple issues with your statement:

1. Most, if not all, inkjet vendors practice this. In fact an inkjet vendor that didn't practice this would be cut out of the market because he would have to charge the real cost of the printer. Thus, everyone is undercutting each other and passing the cost in another form. This is arguably anti-competitve behavior and undercutting to drive someone out of business in many situations has been ruled to be anti-competitive.

2. The consumer may or may not know what ink really costs. Its important to know the mark-up and using ignorance to overcharge on such a level is ethically dubious. Worse, there is nothing the consumer can do except move onto other technologies like laser printers. Now, imagine if the $20 laser printer came out except toner was $150 and it had some BS DRM attached to it. Now what do you do? Move to a copy machine?

This is simply bad business and even in the US this can be seen as illegal undercutting.

3. Legislation like the DMCA gives DRM protected ink a ridiculous amount of legislative protections. In other words the law is part of the problem and claiming "dont change the laws" is silly when a law like the DMCA exists.

Re:unlawful undercutting, DRM, DMCA, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Destroy the DMCA, prices of inkjets go up, prices of ink and ink refills go down. We end up probably paying about the same but it's a much nicer solution because printer companies don't have to try and recover losses from printer sales on ink sales.

Re:unlawful undercutting, DRM, DMCA, etc

[WCMI92]

"3. Legislation like the DMCA gives DRM protected ink a ridiculous amount of legislative protections. In other words the law is part of the problem and claiming "dont change the laws" is silly when a law like the DMCA exists."

The fact that a state, especially one of the most important IT states (North Carolina and RTP) is legislating local exceptions to the DMCA, would suggest great FLAWS in that law... Ones that a true DEMOCRATIC process (process not party) would not allow.

North Carolina has a LOT of influence. It's the eastern US's Silicon Valley. But not as high tax or as stupid as California.

Re:unlawful undercutting, DRM, DMCA, etc

[stomv]

North Carolina is not the East Coast's Silicon Valley. It "shares" that role with VA, MA, and NY. I've lived in Raleigh NC, in Virginia, in Boston, and a stones throw from New York. There are lots of big companies in two or more of these four geographical areas on the East Coast, and lots of interesting results and ideas coming from all four areas.

(Yes, this is offtopic)

Re:unlawful undercutting, DRM, DMCA, etc

[hankaholic]

I agree totally. It's sad to see how much the popularity of PCs has driven quality lower, lower, lower.

I recently worked tech support for a small ISP (about 30k customers) in Western PA, and people do not realize that you really do get what you pay for.

The rush to undercut costs has led to a decline in prices, but also to a decline in quality and respect for the consumer. People want to buy an $80 printer, and a $400 PC, then are surprised when ink refills are expensive relative to the initial cost of the printer, and the HSP MicroModem or PC-TEL* in their Compaq can't maintain a connection for longer than it takes to drink a cup of coffee, even though it says 56K.

The sad part about the market for printers is that finding a quality alternative is difficult, as all of the manufacturers seem to be playing the same games with respect to forcing consumers to purchase ink at inflated costs. With modems, at least you have the option of going and dropping some cash on something implemented in hardware...

What would be _really_ useful is a hardware review site that tracked things like this, instead of "let's review the newest AMD crap and video cards" like most hardware sites seem to do. A consumer's site devoted to accurate reviews of printers, cartridges, modems, mice, and such (and which PC manufacturers are using shitty stuff) would be more useful to the general population.

* You can have a PC-TEL modem delivered to your door for $8 (including shipping), according to Pricewatch.

Re:unlawful undercutting, DRM, DMCA, etc

[WNight]

Canon doesn't play games with ink. At least, not on their S line of inkjets, and up. (I've seen the $120 - $300 range, and the $450+ range, not the really cheap ones)

Every ink is in a seperate tank, they're just simple plastic tanks without any mechanics, both cheap to replace and easy to refill if you want to go that way. They also don't "run out" of ink until the tank is dry.

And, on my S750, a $175 range printer when new, it came with full tanks of ink unlike most of the competition.

I'm sure they still overcharge for ink, but not disgustingly, so I usually buy brand-name stuff. It's funny, but the company that let me buy what I wanted got me to buy their product...

Re:unlawful undercutting, DRM, DMCA, etc

[(54)T-Dub]

We californian's may be stupid, but we also have the 5th largest economy in the world.

Problem with the old beasts

[frovingslosh]

Try getting that from an inkjet :) Or even one of the newer hp lasers

The problem with these old beasts is that they stayed powered up and hot to be able to print quickly at any time. OK if you are in an air conditioned office and really doing a lot of printing. However, if you have one one your home system you might not even print every day, but the electricity the thing will cost you to run day in and day out (not counting extra A/C costs) will be a lot more than the cost of a newer lower power printer. The old beasts just were not very "green". Consider the number like yours still in use, and it's a lot of wasted fule and associated polution just to have a printer ideling so that it can print quickly if someone wants to print. And many people (like me) may not have printed anything all day.

Re:Problem with the old beasts

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of a "power switch"?

Re:Problem with the old beasts

[JuggleGeek]

The problem with these old beasts is that they stayed powered up and hot to be able to print quickly at any time.

My printer is one of those old beasts. It's an HP Laserjet 4000. I don't print daily, so I usually turn it off, unlike my computer which runs 24/7. I just timed it, and from the time I hit the "On" switch, it takes 22 seconds to get powered up, initialized, etc. After that 22 seconds, it's ready to print, and if you're printing more than a page or two, it'll make up that 22 seconds because it prints faster.

So you don't have to leave it on all the time if you don't print often.

Also, if I leave it running without printing anything for awhile, it goes into a energy-saving "Standby" mode.

Your argument just doesn't hold up.

Re:My god you are an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't walk into McDonalds and tell them that because they sell milkshakes in their own cups, that they should be able to give you one in a cup you brought with you at a discounted rate because you are saving them a cup

This post got me craving a milkshake, so I did just that. They gave me 5 cents off, which is actually a lot more than the cup is worth.

important info about copyright law

[frovingslosh]

So state law ....Supercedes federal copyright law in North Carolina?

The thing is, it doesn't have to. Copyright law clearly has an exception for useful articles or things that provide a utilitarian function, so exactly the thing that Lexmark is trying to protect under a claim of copyright is likely voided by this exception. See more details of this here.

Note also that this same exception might well exclude the "copyrighted" code that Microsoft claims is a copyright violation in X-box mod chips. Copyright was never intended for this sort of thing, and the exception makes it pretty clear that the writers of the law didn't want copyright to be abused this way.

Re:important info about copyright law

[WCMI92]

Isn't copyrights supposed to apply to SOFTWARE

(Windows, Linux, Quake, Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy"), etc.

I thought patents were the thing for HARDWARE (ie an ink cart).

Re:important info about copyright law

[frovingslosh]

Isn't copyrights supposed to apply to SOFTWARE

That's certainly debateable. You can only patent a machine you might build for 20 years. There is little reason why one should be able to copyright the same machine and get a perpetually growing protection if he builds the machine in software rather than hardware. But that isn't the issue in question. Copyright is intended to protect an artistic expression. In the Lexmark case, the supposedly copyrighted code isn't an artistic expression of anything, it's an invention intended for one purpose, to be a lockout mechanism that keeps others from building a device that works with the Lexmark printer. As such it is an invention, not an artistic expression, and should not be covered under the copyright law (read the link I provided). It might be something that could have been covered by a patent, but Lexmark didn't seem to go that way, they went for Copyright and I don't believe the copyright is valid. (I think there is plenty of prior art that would keep them from getting away with a patent claim, thus this try at hiding behind a copyright, but exceptions in the law don't allow it.)

WRONG!

[putaro]

The Mac ROMs were reverse-engineered long ago using a white-box approach - the publicly available API descriptions from Inside Macintosh were used to get a start and then they just messed with it until it worked. There was a Mac-on-Unix emulator, damn, I've forgotten the name, but it came out around 1990. Apple killed it the old-fashioned way - they bought it, circa 1996. I think portions of it made their way into the Blue Box.

Apple doesn't license MacOS to OEMs. That's how they keep people from making Mac clones. Most people want to buy a machine with an OS, not a bare box and then have to schlep over to the Apple Store to buy OS X.

Apple does not have a monopoly on the desktop market. MS does. It's a whole different ball game.

This is a fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

All inks are not alike. Sure, the cheap crappy dye-based ink technology is pretty old, but those inks bleed and quickly fade. It takes a lot of research to create a bright ink that doesn't fade easily, doesn't run if wet, can be reliably sprayed through microscopic holes, doesn't dry up in the cartridge, dries instantly when applied, and doesn't change colors under different conditions.

For example, my Epson C80 uses "DuraBrite" ink cartridges that cost $50 for a set of 4 (C,M,Y,K), but I don't have to worry about my prints getting wet or being displayed in a window. Still, the cartridges should cost no more than $5 for a set, not upwards of $50!

Re:My god YOU are an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, that was completely off-track. I didn't see the parent, I just thought you were talking about the whole Lexmark thing.

I hate to say this...

[dbCooper0]

...but I am starting to miss the nasty sound of a dot-matrix printer in my home office.

After all - my clients have given me these relics because they didn't want to deal with them. As little as I print, it would not matter.

For images, I massage the JPG and put it where it needs to go. Print What?

I've got it!

[QueenNina]

The printer companies can start selling ink for really cheap - they'll just have to charge us an extra $200 or so for the printer! Wow, nobody would whine about that! People LOVE it when the initial purchase is huge!

Seriously, though, here's my ideal model: cartridges should be at least 25% cheaper, printers should cost 15% more, and people should stop throwing away USB cables (they do it ALL THE TIME, it's really annoying). Also the companies that make the printers should have some sort of exchange program wherein you can drop off your old cartidges somewhere and get a '10% off your next ink cartridge purchase' coupon or something. There. Things are cheaper, people are still making money, and there's less waste. But I know nothing about business, just like the rest of you, so now I'm going to sleep. :P

Re:I've got it!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I have a laser printer instead of an inkjet. I don't mind paying more for a laser printer, because the operating cost per page (toner cartridges) is much lower. Of course, that holds truer for some laser printers than for others - you have to shop around a little. The only downside is that I can't print colour...

Old equipment still in use

[Grishnakh]

So what are some other pieces of computer equipment from antiquity that people still use because they're made better than anything today?

Personally, I have a Keytronics keyboard from 1990 that still works great, though the plastic has all yellowed.

I also have an old Teac 3.5" floppy drive from around '92 that works fine; every time I've built a new system I've reused this drive.

I also have a Mitsumi 5.25" floppy drive that worked fine last time I tried it, but I had to take it out because I just never used it anymore...

Re:Old equipment still in use

[red floyd]

So what are some other pieces of computer equipment from antiquity that people still use because they're made better than anything today?


I believe we discussed this a few days ago... IBM Model M keyboard.

Re:Old equipment still in use

[maelstrom]

My US Robotics V.everything modem. One of the most beautiful pieces of computer hardware I've ever owned. Even though I despise dialup, I love this modem, I don't think I'll ever get rid of it. Had it for too long now.

Putting out the fire with water pistols?

[six809]

You really shouldn't have to do this. How many little laws have to be created to sidestep 'unintended' consequences of the one law to rule them all before it can be declared a Bad Law?

Re:Putting out the fire with water pistols?

[Anonymous Coward]

51% or greater of the other states would have to agree before they would even blink an eye ...

the majority rules.

unfortunately so does money, corruption and fear of bankruptcy.

I don't do that!

[RosCabezas]

When my lexmark ink is over, I buy another printer!


I have a load of them...

Offtopic: Samsung 1430

[pwarf]

I've had a Samsung ML-1430 for a few months now, and I am very pleased with it. It prints quickly and with good quality. Even with the toner-saving feature on, the text is clear and crisp.

It prints quickly. It's at least as fast as most copiers. Also, if you don't have enough paper, it just stops printing until you add more and then it automatically starts printing. Likewise, if you try to print something while it is off, it will start printing automatically when you turn it on (at least under Windows XP).

I just have one small complaint. There is not an easy way to duplex (or print in book format - whatever you want to call it). You have to figure out whether to print the odd pages or even pages reversed, and figure out which to reverse.

However, I still give it a strong recomendation.

Re:Offtopic: Samsung 1430

[AyeRoxor!]

"I just have one small complaint. There is not an easy way to duplex (or print in book format - whatever you want to call it). You have to figure out whether to print the odd pages or even pages reversed, and figure out which to reverse."

That's not a printer-specific complaint. Wouldn't you need to figure that out for any printer?

Re:Offtopic: Samsung 1430

[pwarf]

There are some printers that have a book setting, and they print the right pages and then show an animation of where to put the printed pages to make everything work out right.

However, now that I think about it, you can just print all the even pages in reverse order, and then feed that stack face down into the input tray and then print the odd pages in normal order. I had mistakenly thought that you had to take different steps when printing an odd number of pages instead of printing an even number of pages. I feel a little silly now. Anyway, a very nice printer.

Re:I like this - It's called "irony"

[octaene]

Funny that N.C. is opposing Lexmark, who's parent company IBM has it's largest site in the world in the Research Triangle Park (18,000 employees). The Research Triangle Park (RTP) is only 15 minutes from the North Carolina state capitol of Raleigh. LOL!

Maybe this will kill the DMCA

[HighOrbit]

Perhaps this will be a useful test case to go all the way up to the Federal Supreme Court and get the DMCA thrown out on anti-trust or other grounds. Or perhaps it will generate enough publicity to get the public worked up in a lather of rage at being ripped-offed by Lexmark (and others). Either way, its good news and we can hope it comes off well.

Weird quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some called it legislative meddling in the courts.".....isn't that what legislatures are for??

New market

[faring]

I smell a new market for those mod chip makers.

1893 and 1907?

[krysith]

While the Great Depression of 1929 was certainly caused in large part by gov't intervention (the low interest rates of the late twenties which you cite, and the Smoot-Hawley tarrifs), you should note that when we had a laissez faire banking system, things were even worse. Most people have grandparents who remember the Depression of the 30's, so they know about it. However, we also had significant depressions and bank runs in 1893 and 1907, which were ~why~ the Federal Reserve system was set up. Remember that old story about J.P. Morgan locking all the big players in a room until they bailed out the stock market ? (pdf) See a quick summary here . The fact is that the business cycle has never been repealed, no matter how many times (1920's, 1990's) it has been predicted to be.

despite all the negative comments...

[MemeRot]

This worked well in germany with toy manufacturers. They were required to pick up the tab for any packaging that ended up in the municipal waste stream. Within weeks the companies were selling just the Barbie doll and not the giant cardboard box and plastic. What, was the Barbie doll going to spoil sitting there?

What many people don't realize is that a lot of our environmental problems are caused by regulatory environments that allow companies to shove costs off onto the government. When a cost is external, it doesn't affect the company's actions. When the cost is internalized and suddenly it makes economic sense to recycle components and use less packaging, then the environmentally correct action flows naturally. You can't impose environmental requirements that add cost, it doesn't work very well. You CAN make a company pay the real cost of disposing of its waste, and being motivated by profit, get companies to make the right decisions for economic reasons.

The Obvious Cheap Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why nobpody has mentioned the obvious cheap printing solution.

Dump all your printjobs on a USB memory drive and print them out at work during lunch hour.

Doesn't matter about federal law - no jurisdiction

[MemeRot]

This law only applies IN North Carolina, there's no interstate commerce involved. Hence, no conflict with the DMCA or any other federal law because it's not in their jurisdiction. The law doesn't say anything about what goes on in other states, and doesn't affect federal courts. So, what this means is that a local company - one with offices/plants/etc ONLY in North Carolina can make these refill cartridges and sell them like mad. They can't be tried in federal court because there's no interstate commerce, and thus no jurisdiction. Now, a national company couldn't do this, they could still be subject to DMCA suits in federal court - but there's nothing preventing them from spinning off a unit to pursue this market. And of course the company can't sell them across state lines without coming into federal jurisdiction again, so this is no benefit to the rest of us except as a motivator to write our legislatures. If similar laws were enacted in the majority of states (and what voter wouldn't be in favor of this?) then Lexmark's victory in federal court would be largely void.

So basically

[unicorn]

we're now reduced to passing laws, because customers are stupid sheep that won't take the time to inform themselves?

Re:So basically

[Eric Smith]

As a libertarian, I consider it to be the job of the consumer to look out for his or her own interests. However, realistically the country is full of idiots, and if the government doesn't impose at least some minimal requirements for truth in packaging, etc., there are a lot of people/companies/corporations that will use false or misleading packaging and advertising to screw the consumer.

I'm almost never a fan of increased legislation, but on this issue I'm only concerned with enforcement of existing laws. Products using DRM to restrict consumers rights should be labelled to distinguish them from unencumbered products, since they do not provide the same value to the consumer.

Much worse than that.

[Gendou]

"Ink (colour+b&w) costs nearly as much as the printer" is a gross understatement.

I was at my local Wal-Mart recently, and checked some prices.

New Lexmark printer: $36
Black ink cartridge for it: $35
Color ink cartridge for it: $38

So a pair of cartridges costs TWICE as much as the printer.

You might think that throwing out the printer whenever you run out of ink and buying a new one is the best bet, but you're missing one important element: the printers come with "starter" ink cartridges, which contain considerably less ink than the retail cartridges -- I'd guess they come about 1/4 full.

Re:My god YOU are an idiot

[jtdubs]

:-)

No problem. It got modded to -1, Troll anyway. Hehe.

Justin Dubs

satisfaction guaranteed!

[djtack]

Get one at Wal-Mart and when the ink runs out - return it and get a new one, complete with a new ink cartridge

This is brilliant, although I'd skip the "lame-ass excuse". You don't need it. Their store policy is 90 days satisfaction guaranteed. The magic words are "I wasn't satisfied". Be vague, be evasive, you don't need any other reason than that. If you are pressed for details, or asked if it's defective, say "No, it just didn't meet my expectations" or "it doesn't fulfill my needs". Just keep restating the same thing in different ways until they give in.

As the poster said, the Wal-Mart "associates" usually don't care, and won't need a lot of convincing.

A lot of people have replied that this is illegal or immoral; I'm not so sure. As long as you don't lie about it I think you'd be ok. Remember that Wal-Mart will not bear the cost in any case, they'll make Lexmark or HP pay for the replacement. If they have to handle too many returns they may eventually decide to stop selling those brands - wouldn't that be a kick in the ass!

Other contries do this too?

[ByteMangler_242]

I am an American who is going to cry that Slashdot is too U.S.-centric.
Does the rest of the world get this same treatment on inkjets? Or is it a special treat for us yankee doodle dandies?
This has me about ready to start an import business. Somebody somewhere makes workhorse printers which have ink selling for less than the price of caviar. Or would I already have competition in this field?

wtf? Your wife "didn't let you"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that stereotypically it is the husbands that are more thrifty (well, not if you count in the toys that some always buy), but here I just can't understand why your wife wouldn't let you get the used laserjet unless she was rather sure it was defective. Oh well... women

Re:wtf? Your wife "didn't let you"?

[PD]

Because it was dirty. It worked perfectly, but looked like it had been installed in a coal crushing factory.