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

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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: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.

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.

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).

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."

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.