Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Office Rules Against Lexmark
SparkyTWP writes "'The United States Copyright Office has ruled in favour of Static Control Components, of Sanford, N.C., saying that its microchips do not contravene the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.' This was in regard to SCC making microchips that imitated Lexmark's in remanufactured printer cartridges. It appears Lexmark won't be able to do anything about third-party cartridges."
Well, this is going to do some serious damage to the business models of virtually every printer company out there.
I guess HP won't be raping me for cartridges anymore. But I think this will raise the price of printers.
"Lexmark filed its suit against SCC in December, 2002, saying the DMCA shields itself from competition from the remanufacturing industry."
Could there be a more appropriate quote that shows how the DMCA is ultimately an anti-competition and anti-capitalist tool?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
I was starting to worry that everyone else was crazy and the whole country, the legal system especialy was just out of touch with reality.
Small victiories...make everything work.
They'll need to actuall sell the printers at a point where they make a profit and sell refill cartridges with only a small profit margin! How will the world manage to go on after this!?
It must be owned by Halliburton to get such preferential treament from the Bush administration!
First good news I've heard regarding IP, the DMCA, etc in a LONG time. FINALLY some people are realizing how monumentally stupid that piece of legislation is.
Erioll
and I just needed a new cartridge (black). This was my first replacement, and what I discovered was that in ordinary retail channels, you can't buy third party. You have to go to the web for that (which means you have to plan ahead). I hope this ruling makes third party cartidges more available, but I suspect that Lexmark has leverage over typical places like Office Max (Don't sell third party ink, or you can't sell our printers).
I just love it when the government actually does what it's supposed to, namely, protect free markets instead of encroach on them!
Does anyone know if Lexmark has any legal recourse beyond this ruling? Can they appeal somewhere? Or is this the done deal?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I'll say this is good because NO company should ever try to lock people into propietary accessories by selling the initial main product at, close to or below cost, hoping to make up their profits by selling the locked-in accessories for a larger portion of the profits.
Look at the Playstation 2. It's locked-in (you must have Sony approve of and produce your game in _most_ instances), yet they make their profits on the game system whether or not you buy any games.
Let's see how long before other companies discover ways to break the models of these lock-ins and force the main company to rethink their strategy of selling short and hoping for bigger profits as time goes on because no one else can sell the accessories at reasonable prices.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Maybe this will stop them selling cartridges that cost more than their inkjet printers. What a stupid, f***ed up business model.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
It's about time someone finally did something that made sense in this messed up DCMA ruling.
Nice. It's been said before here - the courts usually do the right thing, you just need the staying power (read: money) to get there.
I liked the quote at the end:
I read that as "My turn now..."
I
True, but they're a Copyright Office as you state, and therefore can decide whether the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act applies or not.
Ha-Ha!
Linuxprinting.org has a vendor score card to show you which vendors deserve yor support.
Their recommendation (and HP's work writing opensource drivers that support all the features of their printers) was the reason that I purchased a PhotoSmart 7260 from HP and I haven't regretted it - even the integrated card reader works.
Not surprisingly they rate Lexmark inkjet printers as useless.
Beep beep.
Kudos to the Judge! A successful company is built upon good competitive skills, excellent products and customer service.
If Lexmark feels that it is unable to compete unless it pummels its customers with expensive consumables, protected from competition by law then it deserves to lose market share.
Do you want to buy a new car for 100 quid then pay 15 per gallon for petrol?
It's not everyday you see a story about the US court system doing something right. Honestly, I didn't see see how creating an ink cartredge compatible with a printer was any kind of circumvention of copyrights, and I'm glad the judge saw it that way as well. Horray for competition!
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
...i can now use HP ink inside a Canon printer? Should there be instead a standard? If not why not because as long as they all make them work with their printers you would still have a lock-in. What if HP was selling ink cheaper than Lexmark? You can't buy it because of your printer brand, but i can go to the petrol station and fill up with nearly any fuel with any car.
Jonathanjk.com
No they can't. With the DMCA out of the way for now, and disregarding patents, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act prohibits a manufacturer from conditioning a product's warranty on use of other products identified by trademark unless the manufacturer can prove that the off-brand product damaged the product under warranty.
Will I retire or break 10K?
That the retail chains had leverage over Lexmark, not the other way around!!
"Oh, we can't sell third party ink for your printers? Well then I guess we'll have to remove all your products and tell customers they should return the ones they bought recently which we'll ship back to you at your expense, as per our contract..."
But even though it seems like that's how things should be, I have to agree with your view being how things really are. I just can't understand where the leverage is coming from.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They can try that scheme. However automobile manufactures tried that stunt years ago, and it has been countered. When denying warentee covereage because of something the customer did they need to prove the modification caused the problem. Thus a non-OEM radio is not reason to refuse coverage for a blown engine, but would be reason to refuse coverage on a blown speaker.
Wouldn't surprize me to see them try to pull that stunt, and it would cause problems for a few years. Expect that it will eventially be knocked down in law/courts.
I wrote them off completely when they started this stupid suit. I was never crazy about their printers to start but considered them because they were in the same price range. If they had come to their senses and reversed their decision, I would have re-considered but, they remain on my sh*t list for good.
I find your ideas exciting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!
Cheap printer cartridges for all!
http://www.monsterinkjets.com/ - They only have Apple, Canon, Epson, and Xerox, but they're incredibly cheap (usually a couple dollars at most), and they have free shipping. Minimum order of $10, but considering that $10 worth of ink at this site will probably last you until your printer breaks, it's not so bad.
ABCInkjets - They're anywhere from a bit to a bunch more expensive depending on model (most are like $5/$6 from what I saw, but of course the one I need is $20), but they have a much bigger selection. Free shipping there too.
This issue had no business involving copyright law. This should have been settled with patents (i.e. If Lexmark doesn't have any covering it's cartridge design, it's SOL). This was a perfect example of the concept of "Intellectual Property" clouding the distinction between copyrights, patents and trademarks. The fact of the matter is that Lexmark's business model is perfectly valid, and well documented, but they didn't want the time limitations imposed by patent law and they thought they could get around it. They should fire the legal team that gave them the advice that led them down this path, and wise investors should have left long ago after seeing all this money wasted on developing "protection" technology that depended on an untested legal concept to work.
I'd rather pay a few extra bucks on the front end than get reped in perpetuity.
No more "$50 printers" that require two $29 cartriges every couple of months.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
How asinie is it to sell a product at below cost and lock people in to the highly marked-up and frequently replaced accessory products? I wouldn't mind paying $200 for a printer if the ink refils where like $10.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em with a stick. Fuck 'em 'till they turn purple. I've been refilling cartridges since I found a text on a BBS oh-so-many years ago (anybody remember 2400 baud external modems you could fry an egg on?). So now (well, for awhile now... I've got an epson currently) they've decided to toss "quality control" chips in/on their jewel-encrusted cartridges. That court ruling serves them right for the bait-and-switch practices they've been doing for years. Maybe someone will second this memory: in years past, wasn't there a pretty solid ratio between the cost of the printer and the cost of the cartridges (inverse ratio actually). Last time I looked it seems they're just screwing everyone on the cartriges, period. And how about this one for christ's sake: Epson cartridges supposedly can NOT be removed (for any reason) and replaced or else the nozzles will go tits-up (this is according to their web page). Happened to me; no matter what I do cleaning-wise, the blues and reds are mis-aligned. Anyone know of a fix (short of ditching the printer and buying a new one)?
What the inclusion of third party cartridge resellers into the market place does is cause competition in the sale of a specific consumable (toner), and nothing more. Sure, it is going to cut into profits, but printer manufacturers have a very easy way of fighting back: if you use third party consumables, you void your warranty. And this is a perfectly reasonable tactic, because you can't expect a printer manufacturer to insure a product that is using components who's quality they have no way of controlling. And trust me, when it costs $450 dollars just to have a printer tech take a look at your machine, no one is going to willingly void their warranty.
Can pee on a fire hydrant once on a while.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
...to force all these printer manufacturers to support their printers longer than the time to the next product cycle..
I'd rather pay $300 for a printer and have it supported for 5 or 6 years across multiple generations of my OS, than have a $60 printer, with $60 cartridges that are 1/2 full and won't work on the next release of my OS.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
although an administrative agency ruling like this carries a lot of weight, Lexmark is free to ask the federal courts to review this issue, and federal courts may well take a different view. Of course, courts typically defer to administrative agency interpretations, they don't always do so, particularly where they find that Congress clearly intended a different result.
sig my booty, check my website
Wal-mart needs to sell generic ink carts. They could get be "Equate" or "Great Value" and sell 'em for $15 to $20 bucks, and put them side by side of the "name brand" ink cartridge.
Here's SCC's webpage on the case. They have a Press Release (pdf) and a link to the official ruling site (but I don't see the ruling there yet).
I've been watching this case closely, and I'm glad it's been thrown out like the Garage door opener case!
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Relevant text of the statute from an off-brand inkjet ink manufacturer, quoting 15 USC 2302:
Where again is it limited to motor vehicles?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Why couldn't Lexmark just use a strong crypto authentication protocol--one resistant to man-in-the-middle attacks? Sure it would cost more to put a real chip with math functionality in each cartridge, but they could make it up by just raising the price. Change the key with every generation of printers and they've probably bought themselves enough time to keep out competitors.
Milo
This can only be a good thing. Not only does it put Lexmark in their place, but it also tells other companies that they can't cloak their anticompetitive practices behind the DMCA.
There was a similar case where the Chamberlain Group, a garage door opener manufacturer, sued Skylink Technologies over a universal garage door opener using the DMCA by saying that the program that interpreted the signals from the garage door remote was being exploited by Skylink, and thus fell under the circumvention article in the DMCA. Skylink has won this case. The judgement is here.
-R
Look at the Playstation 2. It's locked-in (you must have Sony approve of and produce your game in _most_ instances), yet they make their profits on the game system whether or not you buy any games.
Um, Dude, Sony (and the other manufacturers) lose their frickin SHIRT on hardware sales. When they were selling the PS2 for ~$300 at launch they were taking a loss!
The whole game industry is built on this idea, that you should spend the majority of the money on the software you want, not to be able to play that software. If you don't want restrictions on what games/software you can run on your box, stick with the PC.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Office Depot was running a promo for a while.. bring in an empty ink cartridge for "recycling", get a free ream of paper. I've seen collection bins at staples and other places. Obviously, they resell these to places that make remanufactured ink cartridges, and the printer makers don't seem to care.
I have blog like everyone else
I hate how laws like the DMCA require many court battles to figure out what effect they actually have. The DMCA is so far-reaching, there will be lots more lawsuits like this one, each one hammering out a specific precedent for a specific situation.
With a situation like this, you will always need a lawyer to advise you on what effect the DMCA might have on you.
I'd really rather just see the DMCA gone. I hate seeing long, drawn-out court battles that burn time and money and just peck around the edges.
It's possible that with enough time and money and lawyers, someone could battle through and get a ruling that it's legal to use free software to play DVDs that you own. I'd be happy about that, but it would still be a mixed happiness.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Canon doesn't support free software very well, but if you're running Windows, Canon is still in the old school for ink; their ink carts are translucent plastic boxes with ink in them. Trivial to refill. I just last week bought an i960, and I love it. The ink boxes hold 15ml of ink per color, which lasts forever it seems, and it looks like refilling is as simple as "pop a hole in the top, squirt in ink, reseal." Each color has its own ink box so you only replace what's empty. They have an optical low ink sensor so it tells you when the ink is REALLY LOW, not "the counter says you should be out of ink, so I'm not printing anymore."
The i960 prints photos very fast, as well, and the 4x6 drop-down tray is very cool if you're using the printer to print photos and regular stuff every day. The photo quality is excellent.
They do charge $200 for the printer; if it was from Lexmark I think it would be $100, but they'd be selling you locked-in ink carts for $30 each.
I had an Epson before, and between bottom fill refilling leaking ink onto my hands, sponges that got air-saturated so you couldn't get them full anymore after a few fills, chips that you had to buy reprogrammers for to reset them, etc, etc, I was fed up.
It will raise the prices of printers..
Time will tell if they raise them to the point of penalizing us users..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I just did a quick review of HP's SEC filing for 3Q 2003. Some interesting results:
Personal Systems Group, $56M Loss on $4.9B Revenue
Enterprise Systems Group, $70 Loss on $5.2B Revenue
HP Services, $337M Profit on $3B Revenue
HP Financial Services, $18M Profit on $442M in Revenue
Imaging and Printing $739M Profit on $5.2B in Revenue
So, the HP machine is driven by Imagining and Printing. What fraction of that $740 profit do you think is generated by printer cartridges versus printers?
Printer cartridges are an amazing cash cow and if there was any kind of credible threat (resulting in a drop in pirnter cartridge prices), HP will be in big trouble financially. This is why HP, Lexmark and Epson are vigorously protecting their cartridges.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Clearly, the Copyright Office's decision bodes well for Static Control Corp. and anyone else that wants a piece of the lucrative printer after-market. However, while I fully support SCC and applaud the decision, I'm just cynical enough, after several years of DMCA machinations, to wonder whether it is law (DMCA), money (business interests), or copyright that prevailed in this decision.
It's not just lawyer bills... The injunction has halted the sale of SCC's smartek chips since feb 8... Nine months of lost sales for SCC and the cartridge remanufacturers who buy SCC's chips.
What kills me is that, in granting the preliminary injunction the judge had to consider the potential for damages (page 48)... he found that Lexmark would suffer "irreparable harm" in terms of lost sales and money. Excuse me, but I think those can be repaired with money. On the other hand, if SCC had been put out of business under a load of bogus legal bills it couldn't survive, I think it would have suffered irreparable harm.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Not quite like that, but the same idea. I believe it's Cannon that makes several higher end ink jet printers which use very cheap ink cartridges. Instead of the print head being part of the ink cartridge, it's part of the printer. The ink cartridges are just plastic tubs of ink, and are quite reasonably priced. They're still not easily refillable, but they're cheap enough that it doesn't matter so much.
The facts sound roughly similar to Sega v. Accolade, a 1992 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case in which Sega (whom you all know) sued Accolade, who made Sega Genesis-compatible games without obtaining a license to do from from Sega.
Sega sued the crap out of them, alleging among other things trademark infringement. Basically, the Genesis console has a bit of code in the bootloader that checks that the game cartridge has the word "SEGA" in a particular location. That triggers a display that says "PRODUCED BY OR UNDER LICENSE FROM SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD" for a few seconds on the screen.
Sega was trying to be clever. If you manufactured a game cartridge without the "SEGA" code, it wouldn't run. And if you manufactured one with it, then you caused the display to appear. And if that statement was false (because you hadn't actually obtained a license), Sega could sue you for trademark infringement! Hehehehe.
The court told Sega to get a life. Trademarks are a limited monopoly allowing the holder exclusive use of certain aspects of words, pictures, or phrases. They certainly can't be used to tie monopoly purchases to nonprotected things, thereby extending the limited monopoly to them. If you could, then every manufacturer would have monopolies on everything they manufactured, as well as every replacement part, or compatible product, etc. etc. etc. They'd simply manufacture a patented, copyrighted, or trademarked doodad and then make sure that their entire product depended on that item to operate.
This sounds like what Lexmark was trying to do -- they had some sort of computer chip that verified that things were legit, and then they sued anyone who needed to copy that chip in order to make replacement parts. The lesson from Sega v. Accolade is: don't do this.
Can I buy you a Slashdot subscription, Subject Line Troll?
Many printer companies have a shelf-life purposely built into their cartridges' printer heads, so they degrade, discouraging the fill-er-up method.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Merriam Webster's definition of capitalism.
capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
The use of "anti-capitalist" in my post wasn't meant to refer to the so-called capitalism we know is practiced in modern-day America. There are other capitalist models around the world that fit the traditional definition of capitalism a lot better than the U.S.'s.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
How many companies other than Lexmark had tried such a tactic to protect their refill market? How long has the DMCA been a spector, seriously
.8-1.0 years. To crack all the keys, (assuming 256-bit encryption) they could make it very difficult to produce a reliable replacement. At the very least it would create a great deal of FUD around using 3rd party cartridges for years after a new printer came out. Now compare that with the useful life of a printer.
preventing 3rd party cartridge competition? The lexmark case -- isn't it less than a year old? Refill gouging has been going on alot longer than that.
Printer companies can still use technological means to ensure cartridge loyalty, and only for the oldest printers are you likely to reap the benefit of reliable reverse engineering. Suppose your printer company has rotating encryption keys for the protocol that rotate twice a year for 10 years but only after 365 days of being 'on' with '5' days assumed usage out of '7'. Now you use your printer 3 days a week -- That would mean you rotate in
HP places expiration dates in each printer cartridge -- which means if you buy a 3rd party cartdridge and if such encryption were employed, users could find their 3rd party cartridges quickly "expired".
This legal decision does nothing more than release low-quality cartridge verification algorithms -- the easy one's to reverse engineer; it does nothing to prevent printer manufacturers from using ever more complex methods to protect their lucrative cartridge income.
Only if state laws (some state out east was doing this?) pass "open replacement" requirements on printer manufacturers will this situation seriously change.
There is also nothing to prevent printer manufacturers from secretly detecting foreign cartridges and setting a flag in the printer NVRAM to mark it as "tainted" and no longer available for support/warrantee. Makes perfect sense -- "we" (a printer manufacturer) "won't warantee our printers when used with 3rd party cartridges due to the lack of quality assurance in such cartridges. We can't be held responsible if a 3rd party cartridge damages or otherwise causes problems in your printer and won't be held responsible if 3rd party cartridges are used."....etc.etc.etc...blah blah blah. The DMCA is a tool of companies to protect against easily circumventable access controls.
-lpq
i am in one of the big three, and all i can tell you is they make mony on all cars, passenger cars are the lowest profit margin, but trucks are the bread and butter of the american auto manf. that is where the imports are aiming their guns now.
the only one who have been making money the last couple of years. u figure it out...
Why does the Copyright office (an agency of the Executive branch) get to make a legal decision about the DMCA? Only a court can do that. Congress cannot delegate the authority to make judicial decisions because Congress doesn't have the authority in the first place. What am I missing?
someome needs to create a ascii version to post on slashdot board! ascii art rocks
Has no one realized that this is, in the long run, a BAD decision?
... not a couple of exceptions created that makes the DMCA appear less stupid.
The fact that this abuse of the DMCA by Lexmark has been rejected, actually helps DMCA proponents by showing that the dire predictions of fair use advocates are now proven to be hype. We need the whole DMCA tossed out
Imagine how much stronger calls for repeal or alteration to the DMCA would be if Lexmark had won.
This was not a court ruling, and actually does not even put to bed the Advers ruling SCC has already received. This is not the ruling of an administrative agency either. It is the ruling of the Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress, which is under the Legislative branch (Congress). As part of the DMCA, they are obligated to conduct these triennial rules to determine if there are any uses that should be permitted that are not under the 1201 excemptions, and they have the power to add these. What they ruled is that they believe that what SCC was asking for was unnecesary to spell out as the 1201 excemptions in the Copyright Office's opinion already cover SCC's use.
Practically speaking, this is powerful evidence of Congressional intent in the ongoing appeal, and SCC will likely prevail based on this ruling, but it is not a slam dunk.
Now where is the justified moaning about the Copyright Offices refusal to add an exception to decrypt DVDs to play on the Linux OS (which currently contains 0 licensed DVD player software that an average user can obtain and be in compliance with the DMCA). "The balancing of the incremental benefit of allowing circumvention for the purposes of watching a movie on a Linux-based computer is outweighted by the threat of increased piracy that undrlies Congress' motivation for enacting section 1201." SHEESH, oh well, didn't really expect to get that one!
I've read the article or two saying that the Copyright Office ruled in favor of SCC, even on SCC's web site. There are a couple of links to 4 new rules identifying exempted works, but none of those seem to apply to this case. What I haven't found is the text of any announcement from the Copyright Office that specifically metions a favorable ruling for SCC, or the text of any rule that does seem to apply directly to the case in question. Perhaps I'm getting too caught up in the exact wording or SCC's petition to the Copyright Office, but that wording is the only thing that seems to make sense to this case. Has anyone found specific information from the Copyright Office about this? Or, can anyone explain which rule applies and how?
Recent studies show that it costs more to fill up a car with a 20 gallon tank than it does to fill a car with an 10 gallon tank.
So, they both get the same gas milage, but one costs more to fill up?
The one that costs less to fill up must be the better value, nevermind the fact that you fill the 10 gallon tank twice as often.
That's pretty much my experience with an LJ 5. Had to spend maybe ~$60 at Staples for the one and only toner cartridge replacement in the last 9 years.
With these LaserJets though, I would want to unplug them when they are not in use. In fact, I don't toggle the on/off button, just pull the plug. I would think these older printers' fusers still draw a fair amount of power just to keep warm. (I should probably confirm that sometime....)
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
When I read about this case earlier, the DMCA violation was only part of the case against SCC. So they might not be out of trouble yet. When I read the case, part of what SCC copied into the chip was a program that was copywrited. Of course SCC can rewrite that program but there still was a violation there.
And how much has this victory cost Static Control? Lost time, recalls, uncertainity, and lawyers? They should be able to recover all costs from Lexmart, to convince them --and -- others to never try this again!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If you don't like that answer, you have to seek a knowledgable second opinion that carries weight. This will be hard, since you can't buy a service manual (which contains the circuit diagrams and other information that you require in trying to prove your case). You then have to fight the decision legally. All HP had to do was show that the third party cartridges could have caused a problem.
Isn't it cheaper to just pay the $500 to have the rotary assembly fixed, and stop using third party cartridges?
That consumer-protecting law is nice, and I'm glad it's around, but it is easily defeated by the printer manufacturers.
Does anyone find it scary that the DMCA has a section 1201? That means that there were at least 1200 more sections before the section that clears remanufacturers.
So, you've got stainless steel against your and hair. What the hell wears the blade out? I'd think one would last you a decade.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So, you've got stainless steel against your skin and hair. What the hell wears the blade out? I'd think one would last you a decade.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
my wife's uncle is a big wig for chrysler back in home office in detroit. he told me that they lose money, when you figure in the cost of the retail showroom, the sales staff, etc. maybe ford makes money, but the DEALER loses. that is why they push all the extra crap. ford makes nothing on ext. warranties, etc. at least that is what i've been told by him.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I got a Lexmark printer for "free" when I purchased my laptop (laptop manufacturers, the major ones, all seem to have some set of special deals that rotate weekly). When its black ink cartridge ran out of ink, I checked the price of cartridges (~$25-$30). My next step was to order a brand new Canon printer for $50, which prints text just fine (all that I use printers for), which includes a black ink tank and the color one as well.
That means I'm still down about $20 on the purchase, assuming the ink tank in the Canon lasts as long as a new Lexmark cartridge would. I went ahead and purchased 6 new, 3rd party, ink cartridges online for a little under $18 (that's with the shipping added already). At the rate I ran out of ink on the Lexmark, by the second tank I will have already paid for the difference in the printer costs, and anything after that is pure savings.
Canon ink tanks are considerably cheaper than the ink cartridges of HP/Lexmark because the head for the printer is a seperate component that is reused as each tank is replaced. The only problem I've heard with this is if you are low on ink and not using the printer- the ink can dry up on the heads, at which point the printer is trash. But...even if that does happen, odds are the printer will have already paid for itself.
Notice most retail PCs are sold as a bundle with some crappy printer. No retailer wants to sell standalone PCs without some bundled crap to raise the package price.
If printer prices go up it will probably cause chaos for PC retailers. Continue bundling the printer and raise prices on the whole bundle? Unbundle the printer and sell no-profit standalone PCs?
I guess they will unbundle the printer and rely on bundling in an LCD monitor.
But what is the warranty on a printer? Something like 90 days. Why the hell should I care if my nearly expired warranty is voided?
My sentiments exactly and printers have gotten so cheap, I wouldn't bother to get an inkjet printer fixed if it broke. I'd just go get a new one.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
The 'Supplies Annuity' is what makes printing companies so consistently profitable. Every single inkjet is sold at a loss, but that's more than compensated for by supplies revenue. Lexmark's first inkjet printer retailed for $329 and printed ~3 ppm, B&W only. The Z605 goes for $49 retail and does 11 ppm B&W, 8 ppm color. Still, I'd like a more reasonable pricing structure, w/reliable, full-featured boxes that could actually compete w/Epson & HP offerings, in the $100-$200 range. Hell, really shock me and make some of the things in the USA. * * * In the laser realm, it's not so bleak, but supplies are still a big, continuous revenue stream. We'll likely see prices go up for all the players in the market because of this ruling.
You could, but it probably wouldn't help. Because of his karma, he'd still be limited to only two posts per day, subscription or not. A sub wouldn't get him any better karma.
I suppose a troll with a subscription could benefit from a mod bonus that you set for all subscribers, thus elevating -1, Troll posts by a troll subscriber into positive territory. Then again, if you like trolls, you probably want to read at -1 anyway, to get the full effect. SLT is funny (sometimes), but there are other -1 posts that are just as good.
Epson cartridges supposedly can NOT be removed (for any reason) and replaced or else the nozzles will go tits-up (this is according to their web page). Happened to me; no matter what I do cleaning-wise, the blues and reds are mis-aligned. Anyone know of a fix (short of ditching the printer and buying a new one)?
It's actually a quite easy, six step process:
1. Set Printer on concrete slab.
2. Purchase Sledgehammer
3. <Insert the Copier Scene from Office Space Here>
4. Purchase an HP without idiot design flaws
5. ?????
6. Profit!!!
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
I doubt they're anywhere near surgical quality, or else they wouldn't rust...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Smackdown, Lexmark!
I'd happily pay twice the price for the printer if the ink was only $10 a cartridge.
One might argue that the 8 1/2 x 11 printers are simply "ink holders" at this point. The Canon printer I have has ink reservoirs, with a permanent head set, and I refill with the slightly messy ink refill kits at Price Club/Costco for $15 for an ink set on the order of 8 oz. per color. Don't get much cheaper than that!
Those HP printer cartridges can push a liter of ink through the heads before the heads need servicing. Not 21 ml!!!!!
Since we are talking inks, some handy tips:
- We cleaned the HP cartridge heads all the time with just wet paper towels (not the super-soft ones that disintegrate), using purified water, like what you'd put in a steam iron.
- Those refill kits with the needles can damage the foil pouch inside, so insert slowly.
- There is a proprietary technique of refilling the HP cartridges without having a ball bearing rattling around inside; I don't know the trick personally, but it has to do with creating a vacuum somewhere.
- Printer ink comes off excellently with a mixture of water and bleach. Straight bleach and your hands corrode. There's also a paste you can buy, but it is far from easy to find, nor is it cheap.
- Most printers do a power-up "dance" as I like to call it, before they can print. This squirts ink out into a sponge, assumedly to keep the heads clean. If your ink heads cap nicely on a rubber boot, they don't dry out. I've noticed HP printers have a drain/breathe hole in their boots, which seems to circumvent this purpose somewhat.
The main difference between consumer inks (as in those intended for mostly sheets of paper, not odd materials like plastic of vinyl or cloth) comes from print compatibility, not chemistry. Your printer has an ink "profile" which basically says "lay down this much ink for this color, on this kind of paper." There's a lot of math and some scientific measurement to create these profiles, but that's why refill kits sometimes produce pages which puddle a bit, or the color is slightly off. Buy a printer that takes profiles from external files, such as my beloved Canon S820 does. Chances are, you will run with the same crowd that makes these printers, and has websites with profiles for download, etc.Here in North Carolina, Sanford is a small town that SCC breathed life into, intially making anti-static packaging. With the textile and tobacco industries quickly becoming history, SCC was a godsend for the area. Would you rather North Carolina and the courts assist businesses like SCC, or subsidize tobacco and panty hose?
I got a lexmark printer for $50... came with two cartridges... color and blank and white... I think if I buy the ink seperately I spend more than $50... printer's out of ink? no worries, buy a new one!
"It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
SCC filed a antitrust suit back in Feb. Hopefully this new ruling will give them something to push back with. But since the courts favored Lexmark originally, SCC was forced to pull their cartridges. The damage may have already been done.
I think not - Like many others, I have already had my fill of Lexmark's business practices. I dumped my Lexmark rather than buy any cartridge for it. I won't buy from them again.
Its just possible that the availability of third party carts MIGT improve their image, but they'd have to do a lot to ween me back after having contact with their "customer support".
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Ah, I've finally found it. The Copyright Office did not issue a new rule to cover the SCC case. Instead, it issued an opinion (in response to SCC's petition) that a new exemption rule was not necessary because section 1201(f) of the DMCA already allowed such an exemption. After having read it myself, I understand. The text of section 1201(f)(2) is: "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title. " So the Copyright Office didn't alter any rules for the SCC case; it just said that the requested rule already existed.
I have a LaserJet 4L that's been in the family almost a decade. It was used by my mother - an accountant - when she worked from home. She'd end up printing 6000-10000 pages during the busy months.
It still works perfectly, the cartridge has only been replaced a few times in ten years, and I had to replace the motor last year. If you can pick one up for $50 on ebay, DO IT. Best investment you'll ever make.
Last post!
Lexmark's buissness model relies heavily on ink cartriages. That's why the inkjet printers are dirt cheap, but there cartriages, are quite exensive $40, for color and a black. Not only that the printer uses a non-open programming language, so there is no printing in Linux, atleast for many of the inkjet printers. However their Laserjets are the opposite of their inkjets, they are fully supported with CUPS.
They would be great if ink cartridges were the only consumable, but they're not. Print heads for 50 bucks a pop should figure into your calculations.
The DMCA must go.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Au contraire. This result is a bad thing.
By ruling that the law won't apply in limited cases involving physical equipment, the courts have allowed the DMCA to go on existing. It will continue to forbid performing activities to support interoperability, re-use, fair-use, and security as long as the venue is software, and not hardware.
The preferred result would've been for Lexmark's claims to have been upheld, so the true wrongness of the DMCA would be painfully apparent to the public, creating pressure for Congress to revise (or just erase) the law.
Instead of smoothing off the particularly bad implications, they should've been let remain, so the whole thing would eventually be cut down. A law which forbids you from doing a traditional, harmless behavior will be raise outcry and quickly be modified (as we've seen with the toner and garage door cases). But the parts of the law banning new, nontraditional activities that are nonetheless harmless will not be so obvious, as people don't realize they're missing what they've never had.
If the DMCA had stood for hardware, it would've quickly been revoked for both hardware and software.
That used to be a defense to infringement, and covered such things as what lexmark was trying to do. It's been a while since i've looked at it... I don't think the DMCA totally eradicated that doctrine, however. I could be wrong.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
FYI:
h p/ 2171201
o ve rnment/legalissues/story/0,10801,85691,00.html
l ex mark/
The microchips are on the back of the toner cartridges used in two models of laser printers. (Optra S and T models.)
This ruling won't affect inkjets.
Lexmark's argument is that the remanufacturers violated the DMCA when they reverse engineered the little "lock out" chips that clip onto the back of the cartridges. These chips are designed to allow one use of the toner cartridge only.
Don't take my word for it though.
http://hardware.earthweb.com/opinions/article.p
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/g
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/10/03/
great as if my karma didn't suck enough already
Since the DMCA didn't exist back when Sega v. Accolade took place.
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
BTW, if you like trolls, go here, scroll down to the "Reason Modifier" section, and set troll to +1 (it'll put it to 0, which is what I browse at - the best way to do it if you're not a mod and don't want ots or trolls - of course, then it'll only block ot.). I'm not much for trolls, but I do agree with the PoorPost Troll on some ideas for Slashdot's mod system.
To form a sharp edge, the metal tapers down very narrow. This very narrow edge gets bent out of shape.
You're reading the article?
You're trying to understand what really happened?
You're doing research, and not talking off the top of your head?
You must be new here(tm).
World's tallest building rises in the desert
take that lexmark....now I can get the cheap printers without buying expensive ink (analogy, I can get a cheap car that'll run on cheap gas as oppose to uber-expensive gas).
Memorandum
If you read the entire memorandum, you will find it very enlightening, especially with respect to the DMCA. It covers many topics, not just the Lexmark case, but also discusses the DMCA as it relates to region-codes, CSS, the broadcast flag and many other issues.
And technically, Static Control's petition for an exemption was not granted. But the ruling seems to say that the reason for not granting it was because it was not actually necessary -- ie. the DMCA already allows for reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability.
Have you hugged your penguin today?
I guess the DMCA isn't so bad after all
If all you're talking about is ink cost.
HP cartridges have integrated print heads, while Canon/Epson have seperate print heads.
This means that the HP will continue to provide high-quality prints for the life of the printer. While on the other hand, the Canon/Epson will slowly degrade to the point that you have to either replace the printer or send it in for repairs.
In my experience, I've never seen an HP printer that needed replaced before 5 years of heavy use. I have yet to see a Canon last longer than 3 years under moderate use.
the system can work.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Lexmark was hosed from the beginning. Simply, they were attempting to use copyright to patent something that isn't patentable.
But since then I've replaced my old Lexmark for a Canon. I didn't like what Lexmark were doing, so I walked past all the Lexmarks (about 75% of the store's stock) and voted with my wallet. It's the only way to show these people who's boss.
I actually have my wife ( a reformed materials engineer ) researching more in-depth as we speak.
My theory has to do with the immense surface area of skin and hair the blade is rubbed up against. My wife says they even with an immense difference in hardness (between the steel and the face) friction still causes wear on the blade. Even diamond-tipped tools need to be replaced eventually.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Dealers make very little profit (though they do make profit) on the vehicles they sell. The money is made on the extras, on the service departments, that kind of thing. A dealership generally cannot survive on vehicle sales. It is not true that most cars are sold at a loss for the dealership: that's an exaggeration. (I would quote figures but unfortunately they're confidential: however, I will say that my job entails managing financial data for around ten thousand US, Canadian, and Mexican car dealerships spread amongst six unrelated manufacturers representing every sector from the "Big 3" to luxury imports. I work with consultants whose job is to make dealerships profitable. Trust me on this!)
Manufacturers, on the other hand, make money hand over fist on vehicle sales. Additionally, many operate credit banks that are available to dealers, so the manufacturers also make money from financing, warranties, and such. The dealers do too however.
Note this is very different to the situation being described here. For the ink-jet printer industry, we're looking at a situation where:
- Printer manufacturers produce units that they sell wholesale at a loss. Retailers sell these at a profit (to the retailers.) This is opposite to that of the car industry.
- Printer manufacturers have a lock (albiet not a tight one) on the production of a key printer supply which they can make profits on to offset the losses from printer sales. The car industry has no such lock, and dealers who drastically overprice services in an attempt to subsidize vehicle sales would quickly go out of business.
It's very different, and really the two can't be compared.You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
They don't really "wear out" so much as get dull. In order to scrape the hair off your face, they need to be really sharp. A really good straight razor (what your grandfather probably shaved with) does last a lifetime, but needs to be sharpened each time you shave. If you could figure out a way to resharpen your disposable blades, you could use them for much longer.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
You mean I don't have to buy a new printer for $10 instead of replacing the cartridge for $30?
Our company uses HP 4000n series laser printers. We were using HP toner replacements which were $120 each, but would last 4 months. They switched to a 3rd party toner company who only charged $65 - the 3rd party would barely last a month, and have lower quality overall - but it allowed for twice the waste. Personally, I wanted the higher quality. Our higher-ups wanted cost savings.
The IRS, FTC, FDA, etc all can come up with regulations that govern interpretation of laws promulgated by Congress and essentially have the force of law and are often deferred to by district and circuit court judges. In this instance, the Copyright Office decided that a certain class materials simply aren't copyrightable materials and therefore aren't protected under the DMCA. If you don't agree with the CO, then you can sue them and have a battle in court over the CO's regulatory interpretation.
Wait a second: The ruling did NOT say that the remanufacturer was legally OK. It said that the DMCA was not violated, while expressly bracketing the question of whether there was a run-of-the-mill copyright infringement.
Sure, IBM is a mighty giant - but in office supply? I think not. I mean, it's not like they can slow down the shipment of AS/400's to the stores or anything. Even being so huge, I don't see the leverage point.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Quite where you get inner city drag races from is beyond me.
Full disclosure: I've never spent more than 500 UKP (why the *fuck* doesn't slash let you use HTML entities for accented and non-ASCII characters?) on a car, and my current car is nicer than my bosses' shiny new Jeep...
Didn't know that... so I went and asked the manager, and it turns out that it's not that they'll void the warranty, it's just that if we use something other then the HP inks in the HP printer, then if something goes wrong (like the ink cartridge explodes or something), then we have a much smaller recourse of action as to what we can do.
So, it's more cost effective in case something goes wrong, for us to use the name-brand inks...
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Show me a capitlist country with no free markets.
Or a place with free markets that is not capitalist (before you point China, they are capitalist for all intents and purposes since now people can freely accoumulate capital).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
a LaserJet 1100 has soiled HP reputation, and I will never buy another product from them ever again.
Everyone who's had one has had the same paper jam problem, and the $20 cupon to buy another was just insult to injury.
Have you considered purchasing TrollBack a subscription?
Then why did they take it and why are other companies pissed off there wasn't any kind of selection or bidding process orther than "give it to Halliburton"?
Does this mean that software DVD players on Linux are okay because they acheive interoperability and does this mean that software that breaks through ebooks are okay too because they achieve interoperability? This interoperability clause could then be stretched to mean anything...wouldn't that bee cool! :)
Yet another ironic recursive statement.