U.S. Court: Lexmark Can Tie Rebates To Refills

SteveOU writes "Lexmark won a favorable judgement in its attempt to prevent competitors from refilling its cartridges. The judgement, issued by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, was a big loss for 'the rest of us,' reading in part "Because of its patents, Lexmark has the right to impose conditions on the sale of its patented product. It may restrict a purchaser's ability to repair it, which is what in essence the single-use condition does." What now? Will GM prohibit unauthorized repairs of its patented car components?"

Comments

Woo!

[Locky]

Another victory for the DMCA, Gimme a hell yeah!

So, America...

[nordicfrost]

Has your patent legislation done any good for you lately?

(Not that ours has)

Re:So, America...

[danila]

There is no net positive impact for the economy from licensing fees. What one company gets, another pays. More earnings for workers in one firm means pink slips for another firm.

The only possible positive impact from patents is when more inventions are created because of the additional incentives. This is true to some extent in many industries. But it should be patently obvious that it's not the case for Lexmark. While you might be mislead by extremely low prices of new printers, benefits to consumers are not very clear, because of just as extremely high prices for cartriges. The price of one colour print is simply too great. This is an indicator that certain printer manufacturers do not turn the limited monopoly granted to them into public good. That can only mean one thing - the monopoly should be revoked, not strengthened by rulings such as this one.

Re:So, America...

[macdaddy357]

Here is an answer. Boycott lexmark. You need a printer? May I suggest Brother, Canon, HP, Xerox, the list goes on and on. Boycott Lexmark into bankruptcy for this insult! Don't buyanything they make.

Re:So, America...

[The_Laughing_God]

" There is no net positive impact for the economy from licensing fees. What one company gets, another pays. More earnings for workers in one firm means pink slips for another firm."

Please don't take offense, but this is entirely false. Economic arguments on Slashdot often treat the economy as a zero sum game of balance sheets, but it is quite the opposite. The "zero sum game" (if there is one, and I would argue there isn't) is in the money supply. Allow me to illustrate:

Corporation AB produces two products, I and II, with the same intrinsic cost of production, but product II also pays a 1% patent license fee, raising its production cost. For the sake of argument, lets say both products sell the same number of units at the same price - this is akin to comparing the same product to itself, with and without a license fee. (We get a similar result if we assume the more expensive product sells 1% fewer units at 1% higher price or sells at the same price and makes 1% less profit, and other similar cases, but I'll go with the easier math)

The economic impact depends on what AB does with the extra 1% profit from Product I and what the licensor does with the 1% patent license fee for product II. At one extreme, the extra cash can be put in a safe; at the other extreme, it can immediately be used to buy materials from suppliers or to pay more salaries or bonuses. In the middle is putting it in the bank, where part of it may be loaned or invested (and part retained as bank cash reserve under FDIC regs).

Money that is spent goes to someone else, who may, again, spend it on supplies, office equipment or other items, and is, in turn, likely to be spent again to he benefit of its new owner, ad nauseum.

It's not true that 'a dollar is a dollar', in a zero sum daily tally of balance sheets. A dollar that is spent has more positive economic impact than one tucked under your mattress. In hard times, we tend to hang onto our money, which often makes times a bit harder. In good times, we spend more freely, knowing more cash will be rolling in, making good times a bit better for everyone. Much of the affluence of the US economy relies (sadly, IMHO) on our 'consumer economy' where moe money is freely spent, and less prudently reserved.

I'm not saying patent license fees or taxes or any other expense is therefore automatically good. I'm saying that Zero Sum is a poor description of the economy - which is reflected in every capitalist or free market economic model. Regulation of the circulating money supply to stimulate the economy or prevent it from 'overheating' (inflation) does use a model that is a bit closer to 'xero sum' but even that is based on a more nuanced model than the one presented.

Earnings are not static end-of-quarter assets, they are also working capital.

Re:So, America...

[Artifex]

May I suggest Brother, Canon, HP, Xerox, the list goes on and on.

Cheap inkjet printers that are nice do exist, just make sure you keep a few things in mind:

- If you can hold out until mid to late November, you'll see all kinds of holiday and discontinued model sales, through the end of the year.
- Assuming you get a color inkjet, you probably will want to look for a model with multiple ink cartridges, so you don't have to waste other colors when one color goes.
- Also, when you get it, make sure that in whatever operating system you use (be very careful you're not buying a "winprinter" if you need it for *NIX, unless you can get an emulation package) you set the driver to print in greyscale by default - most drivers set to color by default, and "black" is not black, but is a blend of the other inks...

When I bought my HP, it was for $50 from CompUSA, down from $99 - and that was in 1999. Later, I bought a Canon at a lesser discount from Fry's, in 2001, because it uses cartidges that are more expensive to replace all at once, but less expensive overall because I only refill the empty colors. I gave my sister the HP, which is still very nice (and in fact I miss the dedicated envelope slot). HP is so popular that the third party manufacturer prices are probably half the HP price. Canon alternatives, on the other hand, are around two thirds. I have to say, at $10 or $12 total per cartridge, the premium for Canon's name and warranty seems worth it.

And don't forget, no matter what brand of printer you eventually get, some office supply stores will give you free reams of paper or a small store credit for each empty cartridge you return, because most of these cartridges are specifically designed to be recycled and reused, to the point where the stores bank on making a profit returning these. PLEASE do this, not just for the free paper, but because of the environmental impact... which is another reason not to use Lexmark!

Market can solve this, buy Canon

[astrashe]

The market has a solution for this. Buy Canon printers instead of Lexmarks. Canon lets you refill their cartridges, and they let other people sell compatible cartridges. Consequently, even genuine Canon cartridges are cheap.

Everyone always says that the printers are sold at a subsidized price so the company can get the money back on cartridges, but my Canon i320 only cost me $40 at MicroCenter. I can buy black replacement cartridges for $6.50 at Wal-Mart. That's cool because Wal-Mart is open 24/7 - if I run out of ink at 2am, I can buy more, and buy it for a very reasonable price.

Lexmark's behavior would be a serious problem if we didn't have any options. But we do, and instead of trying to litigate them into submission, it probably makes more sense to encourage people to check out the prices of cartridges and to examine the policies on cartridges from various manufacturers, and to buy from the good guys (i.e., from Canon).

I'm always amazed that magazines don't talk about cartridge costs in their printer reviews, but I think that if everyone just got in the habit of including operating costs in any discussion of printers, the problem would go away on its own. For me personally, operating costs are more significant than print speed or even print quality. It's a huge aspect of printing that many reviews ignore completely. And stores have a vested interest in pushing the machines that are expensive to refill - they get a taste of that money as well.

My i320 was very cheap, although it's not super fast, the output does look very good. So I didn't have to trade off quality. The speed, I think, was sacrificed for the $40 printer cost and not for the low cartridge cost. I'm sure if I had spent more, I would have gotten a faster Canon that would allow me to use cheap ink.

The market really does tend to solve many of these problems. I'm not sure that litigation is necessary. Just remember, when you go to buy a printer, that Lexmark went to court for the ability to screw you on refill prices. Don't be a sucker, buy from somone else.

Re:Market can solve this, buy Canon

[ponxx]

I think in this case you're right. The market will solve such problems as there are plenty of competitors, and while the entry barriers to any market are high, the startup cost for making printers is not as expensive as some other products (e.g. processors).

In general, I still think it is good if the legislature makes some rules as to how businesses are allowed to conduct themselves. One cannot propagate free trade but then allow companies to keep markets seperate by DVD region encoding, or by forcing exclusive agreements on dealers.

The EU has recently ruled against Volkswagen who priced their cars differently in different european countries and then made sure the italian dealers would not sell to german customers.

So hey, i'm all for free trade, but make sure it applies to all. Let me re-import Nike shoes from China if I want to, let me buy my DVDs where I like, give the consumers the transparency the corporate players demand from their suppliers.

Re:Market can solve this, buy Canon

[VCAGuy]

For me personally, operating costs are more significant than print speed or even print quality.

That's why I've always used laser printers whenever possible [ok, not always, before lasers were around I used dot matrices]. My big points on a printer are operating costs, speed, and utter dependability. My dear mother had a cow when I told her I spent ~$1500 on a Color LaserJet 4550 ("you spent fifteen hundred on a WHAT?")...but, after realizing how much cheaper it was, she apologized for her fit of rage...

Re:Market can solve this, buy Canon

[Cpt_Kirks]

at Wal-Mart

Dammit, I forget, is Wal-Mart E-VILLE or not?

It seems /. should publish a spread sheet so we can keep up.

Re:Market can solve this, buy Canon

[GregWebb]

How many hundred full-colour pages a year do you print that you can make your money back on a $1500 printer over a $100 on the cost of the ink refils?

Have to agree with the parent, though - just got a Canon i350 and it's great. The one piece of printer advice I always give people is to avoid Lexmark because of their astronomical running costs.

Re:Market can solve this, buy Canon

[ScrewMaster]

Absolutely. There really is no such thing as a totally free market, of course, nor should there be: the government does serve a valuable role in this context. However, if the laws governing business tactics aren't applied with a fairly even hand, then we don't have anything even remotely resembling a a free market. The trouble with the DMCA is that it allows companies that are willing to spend enough money on lawyers to put themselves on higher ground, playing-field-wise. That, among other things, is why the DMCA deserves repeal and the officials responsible for it booted from office. The fact that such a sweeping, totally anti-consumer (and, ultimately, anti-business) law could ever have made it on the books just shows how far out of touch and corrupt Congress has become. All the DMCA is doing is giving businesses enough rope to hang themselves, and us too, by allowing the marketplace to revert to an approximation of lessaiz faire.

An enlightened capitalist (assuming there are any still living in the U.S.) would recognize that, at the core, laws and policies which are anti-consumer are also anti-business. There's X amount of income to be spent on products: if one company pigs a larger share of the goodies by questionable or illegal tactics then others in the same market will suffer. If they all do it then the consumer suffers, and other unrelated businesses will suffer. That's what is meant by a "level playing field" and is why we have laws governing such things. The buying public is supposed to decide which products deserve success and which fall by the wayside: companies abusing the DMCA to damage legitimate competition are trying to insulate themselves from the normal risks of doing business. My response to that is: TOUGH. If you can't stand the heat get the hell out of my kitchen.

I'm dead-set against the idea of manufacturers placing arbitrary restrictions on the post-sale uses of their products, with the force of law behind those restrictions. DVD region coding is bad enough, but at least it doesn't affect the average consumer much here in the US (I don't know about Europe.) But blatantly anti-competitive moves like Lexmark's directly hit the consumer's pocketbook. Essentially, this goes to the core of what is considered "property." If an object is your "property" then you control it: you can do with it what you wish. When a vendor tries to force its customers to use products in a certain way (either directly, or indirectly by attacking a third party) then, in effect, that vendor is trying to maintain some level of ownership of that product. I don't buy it, and I won't buy anything from any company that tries to play that game. You want to keep control? Fine, then lease or rent your products, don't sell them.

The parent is right. Time to kick Lexmark squarely in the wallet. I've never bought a Lexmark product (my personal opinion hovers somewhere between "low end" and "cheap junk") and now I probably never will. It would appear that overall poor quality extends to the very top of their corporate ladder. I'll stick with my HP Deskjet for now, thank you very much.

Re:Market can solve this, buy Canon

[VCAGuy]

I've run a little over 20,000 pages on my CLJ4550 this year...the split on that is about 60%/40% color/grayscale...so, yeah, my "HP Professional Inkjet" was killing me in terms of consumables.

Re:Market can solve this, buy Canon

[JayBlalock]

When a vendor tries to force its customers to use products in a certain way (either directly, or indirectly by attacking a third party) then, in effect, that vendor is trying to maintain some level of ownership of that product.

Exactly. I can *only* imagine what Adam Smith would say if he found out about the legalistic games that manufacturers use today to screw over their customers. Of course, people like to hail him as the Objectivist Patron Saint - folks tend to forget that even he conceeded that government intervention is sometimes necessary to prevent monopolies from taking root.

As far as enlightened capitalists, there aren't any left in major US businesses. Why? Two words: Stock Prices. Companies today are concerned with nothing but keeping their stock prices high, and making their money off the stock market. As long as they can lie to investors and make their company appear stronger than it is, they can do whatever they want to the consumers and it doesn't really matter. It takes spectacular, over-the-top abuses to bring a company down. (ever stop to wonder what Enron could have done had they NOT gone down the path of full-blown evil, and had instead limited themselves to less obvious things?)

So I'm sure Lexmark will turn around and issue a bunch of glowing press releases and stock reports speaking of how they just won a major legal battle to protect their endangered intellectual property rights, and profits are expected to rise in Q1 (thanks to the further jacking up of cartridge prices), and people will flock to buy their stock.

Re:Market can solve this, buy Canon

[JayBlalock]

Well, it goes deeper than that. Some days I seriously play around with (in my head, of course) the idea of making stockholders directly responsible for the actions of them company they invest in. No, I'm not kidding. Think about it.

If I were to give you $500 and say, "Go rob that house. I don't care what you do, just get me their goodies," and you turned around and killed the homeowners, I'd be an accessory to murder at least, if not up on First Degree charges myself. Whenever a stock investor buys stock in a company with a known track record for abusing the customers, the environment, third world labor, etc, that's EXACTLY what they're doing. "I'm going to give you money (my investment) and in return, you are to make me MORE money. I don't care how you do it."

Furthermore, due to the general inability of the court system to properly fine corporations, there is at present NO incentive whatsoever for a shareholder to NOT do this. For example:

Electric Company A is a good, responsible Corporation. They go above and beyond EPA requirements, only use clean-burning sources, and have a steadily-growing customer base among those who care about such things. They aren't making bushels of money, but their profits are steady and rising.

Electric Company B is Evil. They ignore EPA regulations whenever they can, pollute the water sources of small towns, and screw the customers on the prices. However, by not putting any environmental controls in place, they can take a tiny fraction of the money saved and funnel it into a massive ad campaign guaranteed to trick customers into believing they are a good company. Most people fall for it, their profits skyrocket.

To an investor, unless he is possessed of incredible conscience, there's no pressure at all to select A. Company B virtually guarantees him a higher return on his investiment, and anyway, will likely buy out Company A the moment they become a threat. Given he has nothing to lose BUT the initial investiment, there's no reason not to invest in B over A.

It's become a cyclical problem. Those companies which are the most abusive are often the ones with the best stock prices. Companies which attempt to play fair get buried. (look at Ben & Jerry Ice Cream - for years they were the definition of a Good Corporation. Then one day they got bought out thanks to a loophole in "shareholder protection laws" which says if a buyout offer is made which is significantly high enough, you CANNOT refuse. Now they're a corporate subsidiary and just like everyone else)

Somewhere the system has to be changed. It's getting increasingly unstable, as the Stock Market continues to further divorce itself from any sort of economic reality. I'm not making doomsday predictions that there'll be a huge crash next month or something, just the simple statistical fact that no system in this sort of shape can continue indefiniately. If things don't change, it WILL crash one day, and far more disasterously than in the 30s thanks to us being the economic Rome of the modern age.

Yea but.

[Pharmboy]

From the original article:
The rebate program by the Lexington, Ky.-based company offers an upfront discount to consumers who agree to return used cartridges only to Lexmark for refilling or recycling.

This doesn't change anyone's ability to refill their own cartridges, and ties the rebate to the promise to use only Lexmark authorized supplies. HP has sensors in its newer printers that can tell if you use their supplies or others, which affects your warranty, similar. This is not as big of a deal as it is played out to be here, since you can always choose to not buy Lexmark. They don't have an monopoly, after all.

This said, its still a crappy ruling, and it IS being appealed. Unfortunately, here in the States, most cases like this are finally settled on appeal, seldom at the first trial. Case in point is the recent attempt to put off the California recall. Our legal system may have plenty of flaws, but eventually it works (most of the time).

Re:Yea but.

[TheLinuxSRC]

It is my understanding that the automobile industry tried exactly the same thing with regard to routine maintenance (If you did not get your oil changed at the manufacturers dealership, your warranty was void) and ended up getting in a heap of trouble for it.

Is this not exactly the same thing?

Shhhhhh!

[Big Nothing]

"What now? Will GM prohibit unauthorized repairs of its patented car components?"

Shhhh! Don't give them any ideas!

On a completely unrelated, offtopic note I have an historic event to report: I was reading up on the HL2 sourcecode leak, and found this news article. It just might be the first time in history the two words "informed" and "slashdot" are mentioned in the same sentence.

other patented items I won't be repairing

[HealYourChurchWebSit]

Yup ... guess I'll have to do as them ads say ... use only original AC/Delco parts

Same with my John Deer lawnmower ... no more generic Home-Depot replacement parts for me.

Same goes for the little screws that hold the legs on my Webber Grill.

Oh, and I guess I can forget about using them 3rd party vacuum cleaner bags on my Hoover.

Hmmm ... I can see it now. Whenever I want to burninate a DVD, I'll have to use original Dell media.

But let's get real here. Does this mean I can't use some indescript spool of thread repair the patented stitching on my ThinkGeek shirt?

Kidding aside. It almost sounds like this judgement essentially says I'm either 'leasing' or 'licensing' the daggone Lexmark printer. In which case, I'll just buy something else.

Re:why hasn't anyone posted yet

[Maestro4k]

• Beacuse nobody on /. uses lexmark rubbish?

But of course we do, mine makes an excellent paper weight for all the stacked files in the floor, and when the neighborhood dogs get too rowdy/noisy it doubles as a very useful item to throw at them to scare them off. After all, it's not like anyone cares if it's damaged. Oh wait, nevermind, it was damaged when it was designed, my mistake. :)

BMW does it

[TekkaDon]

At least for BMW's Mini car here in Spain. If you buy a Mini and try to repair it outside an official BMW/Mini repair shop or install anything that is not officially sanctioned by BMW, your guarantee will be void.

So with that information, either you buy the car or you don't, but you can't hardly complain if they explain this to you when you buy the car. It's their way or the highway, with another car.

So, like with the Lexmark (if they also warn the potential buyer), the choice is in the consumer hands.

j.

Re:BMW does it

[Karamchand]

Right, the choice is in the consumers' hands and the open market could theoretically solve this. The problem many people tend to miss: People are dumb. Very dumb indeed. No, they don't inform themselves about patents, they don't think about refills when buying the printer. Forget it.

Re:BMW does it

[kfg]

Oddly enough this tactic was tried many, many years ago here in America and declared illegal.

You can have your car serviced anywhere you like, or do it yourself, and it doesn't void your guaruntee.

This is not to say it won't effect your guaruntee. If you put full race cams and a cheap turbo on your car and blow the engine up that isn't due to faulty design or manufacturing. Buy a new engine.

But if you have your oil changed at Jiffy-Lube and a con rod fractures that's a defect and they can't get out of it by saying they didn't service the car.

This doesn't mean that there aren't unscrupulous dealers who will claim otherwise, but that's why they're unscrupulous.

That's what makes this particular rule somewhat puzzling. It flies in the face of decades of case law and centuries of American legal and cultural tradition.

Most puzzling about it is the way it overreaches the actual issue at law.

Ah well. That's why God invented Appellate Courts I suppose.

KFG

Re:BMW does it

[barzok]

It's called the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1974. Anyone who's into repairing or modifying their own car should be be aware of it. Also see SEMA's page on the issue.

Re:BMW does it

[kfg]

And that act, like many consumer protection laws, is merely the legislative codification of case law that predates it by decades.

KFG

A Decent Printer

[Kevitt]

I'd be more than willing to spend slightly more money for a printer that is actually built to be used more than 6 months before either falling apart (cannon,lexmark), or being superceded by the same printer under a different model number that uses totally different replacement cartridges (HP).

Look at the crap that printer manufacturers are pawning off on people nowdays. You got your printer selling at like $70US, and refills selling at $50US. It just makes no sense. If you're like me and only print when absolutely necessary, then by the time your ink runs out you might just as well buy a whole new printer and forget about the new cartridges altogether.

oh, this is BS

[erc]

This is nonsense. The original poster obviously didn't read the ruling. "The rebate program by the Lexington, Ky.-based company offers an upfront discount to consumers who agree to return used cartridges only to Lexmark for refilling or recycling." What's wrong with that? The court is just upholding the company's right to offer an incentive to customers. No DMCA challenge implied, gang. Read the ruling before you post, huh?

Re:oh, this is BS

[fermion]

Of course it is legal. And the customer might even have an informed choice on whether to take the rebate of not. It is just another thing that confuses consumers and is marginally deceitful.

The problem is the printer will be advertised at it's price after rebate. At the retail outlet the full terms may not be disclosed until after the sale is completed. It is possible the consumer may not understand the full terms until after he or she has used the printer.

Yes, it is the consumer's responsibility to ask questions and make an informed decision. OTOH, how complex do we want to make act of purchasing good and services. I mean in the US this is an activity we want people to engage in hundreds of times a day, if possible. By making it complex and deceitful we are increasing the opportunity costs of consuming product. I mean I already have grocery stores I don't shop at because they require you to carry a card to get the price other grocery stores will give you just for walking in.

You can say that again

[Kaiwen]

Buy Canon printers instead of Lexmarks.

I just replaced my old Canon with a new i550 two weeks ago. The deciding factor was ink cost. Despite good reviews on both HPs and Lexmarks (along with the Canons), throwing in the cost of refills priced everything else out of the market. And not only is Canon ink cheap, the printers make very economical use of it. HPs and Lexmarks are real guzzlers by comparison.

Until their inks become affordable, I won't even consider other brands.

Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan

Re:You can say that again

[lythotype]

I don't know what model Canon you're talking about but I have just purchased the i850. There is more than 200 pages in the black tank. If fact it is (looking at the printer next to my desk right now) a bit larger than the color tanks to accommodate more printing in black. The tanks are transparent so I can see the ink levels, which makes purchasing a tank ahead of time easy. The color tanks are separate tanks (as opposed to HP all-in-one color tank), so when one color runs out I only have to change that one empty tank, which means that I'm not throwing away good ink. They only cost about $9 (regionally).

I used to be a die hard HP printer fan until I purchased, for my work, an HP1200 and HP960CXi. What pieces of junk! Gone is the renowned HP laserjet reliability in this new laserjet 1200. Its ugly shape adds to its unreliability (just pulling the side off to plug in the printer cable and putting it back in is a nasty chore). The 960 is also ugly (compared to older HP deskjets). The fit of the logo/model panel on the left and the buttons panel on the right are nasty and you can tell that the printer uses a generic body frame with ill fitting parts to make it a specific model.

I remember when Canon was way behind in terms of quality and usability but now they have caught up and are way beyond what HP is today. With there new tank system, elegant sleek look, speed and quality of both color and print (think text, clip art and photos!), Canon's printers are much better than HP's.

Boycott Lexmark

[gvc]

I have boycotted Lexmark for some time due to their gouging on refills. I am also proud author of an expose on how to use Samsung cartridges in a Lexmark E210 printer, at 2/3 the cost.

I wonder if use of a Philips screwdriver violates the DMCA? The modification involves removing a tab in the printer that matches a slot in the cartridge casting. I suppose this could be considered a digital rights management device.

It's even worse than you describe!

[mariox19]

Speaking with my brother, a mechanic, on this subject just recently, I learned the following. It is getting close to impossible to work on cars these days without first using computer diagnostics. Each of these systems is specific to the automobile's make. Moreover, diagnostic systems are proprietary.

Gone are the days when you could work on your own car. A friend of my brother -- who my brother says is an excellent amateur mechanic -- tried to fix his own car and ended up making it worse. The reason? He lacked the diagnostic equipment, and there is just no way to begin without first using it.

Even independent shops are being hurt by this, since they must purchase the equipment for each manufacturer whose cars they wish to service, and the manufacturers change their systems every few years. Obviously, the "authorized" repair shops at the individual dealers have an advantage.

It's well known that the profit margin on automobiles is growing more narrow. Companies are looking to make money by offering financing and through parts and repairs. They have an incentive to get you to deal with them exclusively.

They haven't gotten to prohibiting "unauthorized" repairs directly; but they are getting more and more successful at a de facto prohibition.

If only Linus would go into car manufacturing!

Re:It's even worse than you describe!

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit.

I have a little OBD-II code reader / clear unit in my glove compartment. Plug it in to an OBD-II vehicle (into the government-mandated owner-accessible standard connector), turn on ignition, watch scanner display any codes. Clear codes.

There are proprietary extensions, but the availability of cheap computer diagnostics makes it easier to repair cars than it was 10-15 years ago. You can identify failing components more easily, or determine if the "Check Engine" light was just set by a fluke condition. Yes, the dealers have sophisticated tools; in many cases, a cheap tool has 90% of the functionality.

Back in the '70s-'80s, a home mechanic needed a good timing light, tach/dwell meter, and a circuit-tester or that exotic device, a multimeter. If you want to work on your own vehicle, you're going to need some tools. Your brother has probably only been trained on dealer-level equipment & procedures. A competent home mechanic can do most of the work on their car. I know, because I do. I've troubleshooted overheating transmissions, ignition problems, failing oxygen sensors. You do have to make an effort to understand what you're changing; just as tuning a '60s 4-barrel carb was very different than tuning a 1-barrel.

Re:It's even worse than you describe!

[retro128]

The big problem is that all the gauges have been replaced with the master idiot light: "Check Engine". However, computer diagnostics are not that big of a deal. I built my own for around $60 using this site. My check engine light was flashing and I wanted to know why, and since I dabble in electronics every now and then I thought it would be a cool project to built my own diagnostics board. I printed my own circuit board, drilled the holes, mounted the circuits, hooked it up to my laptop, and volia! It was a cylinder that was missing every now and then, easily fixed by replacing the plugs and wires, and brushing the corrosion off of the electrodes.

Each of these systems is specific to the automobile's make. Moreover, diagnostic systems are proprietary.

This is not exactly true. The diagnostics systems on all cars are standard, and based on standard codes. The three protocol standards for communicating with the diagnostics bus are VPW, PWM, and ISO. Most GM cars use VPW, Ford tends to use PWM, and most foreign cars use the ISO standard. After you figure out how to talk to your car, there is a standard set of error codes that all cars use. However, each manufacturer has other codes they add on specific to the car. That might be the "proprietary" business you were talking about. But those codes can easily be had on the Internet.

The long and short of it is, It's my opinion that computer diagnostics make it EASIER to work on your car because now it can tell you what's wrong instead of you having to guess. The mechanics of today just have to reach a new paradigm.

Hot coffee

[Safety Cap]

Check out the facts of the case rather than regurgitating the company-issued spin.

McDonald's knew their coffee was hot enough to cause third-degree burns within a few seconds' contact, but said they did not intend on lowering the temperature, because as one juror put it "[McDonald's has a] callous disregard for the safety of the people."

Oh, and by the way, the lady initially asked for compensation for her medical bills but was offered a minuscule amount that wouldn't cover the bills. The jury awarded $2.7 punitive and $160,000 in compensatory damages (the latter reduced from $200,000 because she was partially responsible), but the judge reduced the punitive to $480,000. McDonald's then settled for something much less (sealed to prevent curious eyes from seeing).

Re:Hot coffee

[Stephen Samuel]

The difference in temperatures between what was safe and what McDonalds was using was only a few degrees. McDonals marketing determined that they would get X% more market share by doing so mostly because coffee would stay warm for longer starting at the higher initial temperature.

The reason why most other companies did not use the higher temperature was that it was well known that those few degrees made the difference between painfully hot and wound-causing hot.

McDonalds bean-counters calculated that they could probaby force people to settle their wilfull-wounding lawsuits for a low enough ammount that it would be exceeded by the increased moarket share. Most customers would not recognize the significance of the difference between the two temperatures until it was far too late. (I.E. they were in hospital).

Quick upshot: McDonalds was wilfully wounding their customers solely to make more profit. The intent of the @2.7 punitive damage award was not to pay off the lady for the cost of her injury. It was to punnish McDonalds for putting profits ahead of safety.This is really No different than a car company putting new thin-walled tires on their car because they look neat and will sell more, but knowing that people will get injured in the resulting blowouts..

In a court case (in Canada) our Supreme Court Justices made it clear that 'informed consent' is not really informed if it is missing information that might cause a reasonable person to change their mind. I think that McDonald's extra few degrees in their coffee and the safety implications of that would classify as such 'pertinent' missing information.

Canon printers are extremely good

[DrXym]

I have an S750 with 4 seperate ink cartridges. Getting replacements is easy and cheap, there are drivers for Windows, Mac & and Linux and the thing has decent performance & quality. Replacements are $4 for a cartridge and I can even use a refill kit if I choose.

Why the hell anyone would lock themselves into a proprietary solution where the cartridges / printer heads are small or half filled, chipped and cost $60 a pop is beyond me.

All I can say is Canon kicks ass and Lexmark and the others suck! I would be extremely wary of buying anything from HP, Lexmark or Epson given their track record. Let's hope the EU puts an end to it.

Lexmark good, Lexmark bad...

[zer0harm]

I came from the Inquirer to this /. debate tonight...

What a nice company Lexmark is!

It's a consumer-driven problem

[heironymouscoward]

Consumers have been focussed on low up-front costs for years, the high cost of ink and paper are well-known but rarely figure in buying decisions.

It's not even as if people are kept in the dark, this has been common knowledge for as long as ink jet printers have been around.

And yet people choose cheap printers from HP and Lexmark ignoring the long term ink and paper costs... when companies like Xerox and Canon offer much cheaper ink, but slightly more expensive printers.

It's a classic choice facing consumers: low-upfront plus high maintenance, or high upfront and low maintenance. There are many examples:

- low-energy light bulbs (do you buy these?)
- better insulation in your home
- fuel-efficient cars
- season tickets for transport
- freezing food in the summer when it's cheap
- etc.

The fact is that people value choice, very highly. And when it comes to printers, many people prefer to pay more for ink if they can get away with lower upfront costs.

The manufacturers have generally responded by subsiding printers with ink, and their cartridges are designed to support this business model. You don't have to like it, and we apparently still have choices, but it's a valid business model and people who complain are just being fanciful. Ink is cheap, yes, but printer technology is not: someone has to pay, and it's either in the form of $199 printers and $5 ink, or $45 printers and $25 ink.

If my car only cost $995 new, I'd be very happy to accept restrictions on the spare parts I can use. Fact is, cars and printers are not sold on the same basis.

Too bad it's weekend.

[SharpFang]

...but you can still call the "dealer" line.
Just tell them what you think...

http://www.lexmark.com/US/contact_us_detail/0,13 50 ,MTkyfDE=,00.html

Contact Us

Call Us

Ordering parts and supplies
1-800-LEXMARK or 1-800-539-6275
Monday - Friday 9 a.m. - 8 p.m. EST
Closed weekends

Questions before you buy
1-800-LEXMARK or 1-800-539-6275
Monday - Friday 9 a.m. - 8 p.m. EST
Closed weekends

http://www.lexmark.com/US/contact_us_detail/0,13 50 ,NTl8MQ==,00.html

Contact Us

Authorized Lexmark Dealers

Support Lines

Single point of contact for new products & information, including: Presales, Ordering, & the Technical Support Center.

Phone: for Inkjet Printers
1-800-332-4120

Phone: for Laser Printers
1-800-LEXMARK (1-800-539-6275)

Technical Support

Dealer can call the Technical Support Center to get help on resolving technical issues involving Lexmark printers.

LexFax For Dealers (Fax on Demand System)

FAQs and Product Information via facsimile.

1-800-4LEXFAX
(1-800-453-9323)
+ Dealer ID

24 hours
7 days/week

Warranty Claims

Warranty reimbursement for Authorized Dealers.

1-800-253-9627

Mon - Fri
8:30am - 7pm EST
Closed Weekends

A little government regulation would help.

[fmaxwell]

I'm always amazed that magazines don't talk about cartridge costs in their printer reviews, but I think that if everyone just got in the habit of including operating costs in any discussion of printers, the problem would go away on its own.

You're probably familiar with the yellow EnergyGuide stickers that appear on all major appliances. You've doubtless seen the EPA mileage estimates on new car window stickers. Those are both examples of useful government regulations that require informational stickers to assist consumers in making informed purchases.

We need similar requirements levied on printer manufacturers. The manufacturers should have to include a prominent sticker which states the life expectancy of the toner/ink cartridges in pages and the estimated cost per page based on the MSRP of the manufacturer's cartridge. If the manufacturer does not publish an MSRP, then the sticker should be based on the dealer cost plus some fixed markup (representative of typical markup within the industry). The test would be equivalent to an EPA mileage test. It would use standard pages (e.g. X% coverage) and there might be a number for "B&W Text" and another for "Color Graphics" on each printer (with B&W printers having an "N/A" for the "Color Graphics").

Armed with that information, a consumer could make an intelligent, informed decision. It would do a lot to discourage deceptive pricing ($40 printers with -- surprise! -- $50 ink refills).

Re:A little government regulation would help.

[mesocyclone]

Let's see... so the FTC creates a Bureau of Printer Sticker regulation. Then it creates a National Laboratory for Printer Sticker Testing. This is placed in the district of the congressman who creates it.

Then, when you come up with a nifty new printer, you can't sell it until you send it to the Bureau and they test it for a year to measure the usage. Or alternatively, you can put the sticker on after your own certification, and if they get around to checking, you pay a fine. Of course, being a bureaucracy, they will spend all their time in training and never actually check your certificate - besides they won't have the budget to buy the ink and printer.

This is gonna be great! Maybe you should apply for the job.

Or maybe you should start a web site where people can write their own experience. Or perhaps folks should pressure the industry reviewers to publish the information.

Amen.

[Onan The Librarian]

I bought a Z23 recently because 1) it was cheap and 2) because the labeling very specifically indicated Linux support. It even specifically referred to my distro (at that time RH 7.2). After four frustrating days of trying to make it work I finally just returned it and got my money back. IMO Lexmark misrepresents their Linux support. The excellent LinuxPrinting.org site lists the Z23 as a "Paperweight", and IMO that evaluation is spot-on. Hey Lexmark: I'll never purchase your products again, so you can take your cartridges and stuff 'em yourself !

Lexmark needs stickers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most consumers don't know about what Lexmark is doing. A person needs to be educated in order to be a customer who makes decisions, not a mindless consumer of goods. To this end I propose those who wish to educate others should get a supply of printable address lables. On these lables should be printed a consumer warning. Be creative. Be funny or serious, but make it simple enough for anyone to understand -- use no technical terms. These printed stickers can then be clandestinely placed on Lexmark printers in the retail store.

Here is one idea:
"Lexmark prohibits you from buying less costly third-party ink cartridges. You may not refill your ink cartridges in order to save money. You Must buy Lexmark brand ink. You Must Obey."

GM has the right to restrict competition

[konmaskisin]

as much as microsoft does - i.e. yes they will start to restrict rights. The recent judgement against a garage door opening firm (that siad competitors were free to creat interoperable and add-on components) was a blip in history. It will be overturned, or defeated by simple encryption. If competitors reverse engineer the equipment they will have to circumvent and thus will be criminally liable.

The trend (unmistakable) is towards less innovation and competition. The DMCA has enshrined mediocrity: any piece of crap tool (but one with half-assed encryption) can establish a non-competitive monopoly and be protected under law. Ther used to be laws *AGAINST* this.

America is less capitalist and less free market then people think - and the DMCA is the most draconian and totalitarian anti-free market legislation yet devised. The US is more like Britain during the period when its empire began to decline: still the big cheese but soon to be blown out of the water!

Start up tech firms can look to Russian, India, and China as massive markets that are gaining on the US.

what's wrong with that?

[twitter]

"The rebate program by the Lexington, Ky.-based company offers an upfront discount to consumers who agree to return used cartridges only to Lexmark for refilling or recycling."

Oh, that's easy. Doctrine of first sale. If you really sold it to me, I can do what I want. If you are leasing it to me, that's another story because you and I agreed that you own the thing. If you don't care that I throw the thing in the trash all your other conditions are bogus.

Your "prebate", which is essentialy fair market value for your outrageously patented printer cartrige is a farce as well. The root problem here is that Lexmark can get patents on their toner cartridges that effectively keeps anyone else in the world from making them. The most "innovative" thing the company has done is add a lock out chip. By charging an outrageous amount for normal new cartidges that no one else may make and convincing purchasers that they don't really own the cartidge, Lexmark seeks to suck as much money from their users as possible by keeping them from doing what most normal people would do: put tonner into a perfectly usable part.

I will never buy or recomend a Lexmark printer. They have always been the worst on the market. I suspect it's because the company has such poor morals. The whole thing is dishonest and no on should do business with dishonest people.

180 degree coffee is NOT insane

[Artifex]

That's pretty close to pasteurization temperature. I don't know about you, but if I'm desperate enough to get my coffee from an assembly line that creates it in close proximity to beef, fish, poultry, and dairy products, and holds it in a pot that probably doesn't get clean very often (try their iced tea someday - it's often from the same pot, and tastes like it), I want it as close to sterile as possible.

If you really want to complain about fast food drinks, check out the condition of the soda fountain spout covers. I didn't even know they existed until one very dirty one fell in my drink at an AMC theater. Yuck!

Unfortunately, you also miss the economic impact

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The economic impact depends on what AB does with the extra 1% profit from Product I and what the licensor does with the 1% patent license fee for product II.

Like the zero-sum argument, that focuses on the minutae of the match and misses the bonfire.

The situation is actually more like this:

Company A has an invention. The invention reduces the cost both of making a widget and of operating it once it's made. Widgets are a very popular and useful. Several companies make different brands, models, and styles of them for different applications (and the companies specialize in different sytlyes and applications rather than all making all sorts and competing in all widget submarkets). Before the rollout of the invention the market is in equilibrium.

Company A can apply the invention to its new model of widget. The cost savings of the invention on manufacturing of the widget can be applied to increasing the profit margin and/or lowering the price and increasing the market share - both by gaining customers from competitors and from pricing widgets within reach of additional customers. The cost savings of operation accure to the customers - though the reduced cost can be used as a reason to raise the price of the widget somewhat.

But all these pricing strategies simply redistribute the economic benefits of the invention among various parties. The total economic benefit to the overall economy is the cost-saving per widget times the number of widgets, plus the cost savings of using a widget versus NOT using a widget times the number of additional widgets being used due to the price reduction.

So the more invention-enabled widgets in use, and the more widgets in use generally, the more the benefits to the economy.

Company A's widgets have 20% of the widget market, mostly in the widget-in-a-boat application. Company A COULD hold the invention closely, only letting it be used with ITS widgets, and try to take over more of the market - like by going into competition with B's widget-in-a-truck product. A has to invest a lot of money in this and will not capture a significant fraction of the widget-in-a-truck market before the technology moves on or the patent expires. The benefits to the overall economy is just that from the improvements to A's widgets and the extra widgets A sells.

Alternatively, A can go to B and say: "Look at this neat patent. I'll license it to you for use in trucks, cars, and vans. You pay me this fee that splits the manufacturing benefits 50/50 between us and price it any way you like for your customers."

A is happy: They get half the cost-savings from B's new improved widget plant.

B is happy: They get the other half of the benefits, and sell a lot more extra-cost-option widgets. And they don't have A getting into the car-truck-and-van business and snatching their customers.

B's customers are happy: They get cars, trucks, and vans with the new improved widget, which costs less to run and does a better job.

And the benefit to the total economy is the sum of the per-unit benefits of the improved widget times a MUCH larger number of widgets.

The patent license fee didn't do anything to the overall economic benefit - it just transferred part of the benefit of the use of the invention in manufacturing from B to A - in trade for letting A build improved widgets. But the LICENSING ITSELF enabled a MUCH LARGER number of widgets to go into service, much faster and in more applications. THAT is what created the additional benefit to the general economy.

M-MWA

[SonicSpike]

Exactly. The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1974 actually prevents an auto mfg from stipulating which aftermarket parts must be used.

For example... if you purchase a car from GM and they say "you must use Quaker State oil or else it will void your warranty" that would be in violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1974.

Now if they could prove that the vehicle would not function properly without the use of Quaker State oil, then they are legally allowed to stipulate the type of oil (or whatever aftermarket product you are discussing). But again they must be able to prove that by not using this specific aftermarket product the vehicle would cease to properly function.

In my opinion, the same exact logic should apply to this situation. After all it would be nice to have some consistancy in the laws around here!

Vote libertarian (www.lp.org) and buy Amsoil (www.MTOil.com) ;-)