Slashdot Mirror
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?"
(Not that ours has)
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.
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).
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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.
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?
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
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
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 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.
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!
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
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).
Yeah, right.
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).