Slashdot Mirror
Lexmark's DMCA-Abuse Case Coming To An End
Adama writes "Lexmark is dead in the water with their hopes to use the DMCA to force their customers to buy their over-priced toner. Their request for another hearing has been denied. Ars has
an especially great write-up on this." (See this earlier story for more background on Lexmark's lock-in attempt.)
The DMCA is shot down in the court in other copyright related matters.
I know, I know, downloading music isn't quite like manufacturing your own cartridge for another company's printer, but at least this proves that the DMCA can't shield everything.
have recommended AGAINST lexmark products for several years based on their tin-star-sheriff use of the DMCA to support triple-priced magic dust in their printer supplies.
bet I'm not the only one.
DMCA = no fans.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
They need to come up with a new business model other then "lets sell real cheap printers only 1/4 filled with ink, and lets sell ink for $8000 a gallon!" The free market is showing that the people dont like the business plan so they better adopt a new one. If the government interferes here, then it just imposing another form of regulations on the market which never does it good.
They'll be back next year, this time with a patented cartridge that plays (copyrighted) music (or sound) as part of its printing process, try duplicating that legally?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Expect bad news for Lexmark on all fronts. You may recall that Dell has been using Lexmark printers for a few years. But now, even Dell is moving away from them in favor of other printer vendors.
Not sure if it relates back directly to their frivolous use of the DMCA, but it seems like they are being hit from all sides right now.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Allowing the use of DMCA-backed hacks to achieve a virtual monopoly (even if it is in the area of "ink carts for Lexmark printers) would have been a very bad precedent.
OTOH, it seems the DMCA is here to stay. Unfortunate . . .
Don't save Windows XP! http://www.petitiononline.com/jjw1xp/petition.html
Gillette has been doing what the whole printer industry is doing with Razors for YEARS: Give the tool away cheap or for free and charge high for the blades. Some printers are actually sold cheaper than the ink cartages who come with the printer. So the ink cartridges who come with printers now only contain one third of the volume, just to make you go buy a new one a week after purchase. This is just not fair. Boycott the whole printer industry AND save the environment at the same time: Print less. Encourage your friends to do the same. Trees are today being cut down ten times the rate they are being reproduced! This is a fact. Yes, if we keep this up then the planet will be free of trees by the end of the century. So teach the evil printer industry a lesion, print less. And No, switching brand will not help, they are all running the ink scam.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
So does this mean that Nintendo can't claim copyright on the bitmap logo that is needed for the Gameboy to accept a cartridge? Does this open the door for third parties to manufacture their own GB cartridges?
Unfortunately it seems that this thinking is flawed. Customers these days are so used to having their rights, privacy, whatever abused that they expect to be ripped off by the Lexmarks, Microsofts etc of the world.
What happened to the old days when the customer was king and great customer service was the way to do business.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
But is there no contrition or regret on the part of anyone at lexmark ?
I know its plausible to look at both lawyers and execs as bottom feeding scum, but in the entire case is there no one to say this was misguided and a bad use of the legal system ?
"...imagine a Beowulf cluster of our new Lexmark chip controlled overlords."
In Soviet Russia, only old Korean overlords use Beowulf clusters of Lexmark chips.
Where the DMCA fails the Patriot Act succeeds.
I heard that Lexmark is trying to take over the AYBABTU.COM domain from Debian. Debain? That can't be right?!?!?
I don't know how their prices are in the US, but it's terrible here in the UK. In fact, it is actually cheaper to buy a brand new printer with 2 brand new cartridges already in it than to just buy replacement cartridges for your existing one. It's an absolute disgrace. And then they release half priced ones with only half the tank filled, which STILL come out more expensive than all the other brands. I campaign a lot around the friends and familty to NOT BUY LEXMARK. They're all "well, it's so cheap" and "well I won't use it that much so cartridge prices don't matter". And thats the market they aim at :/
How can I be so sure?
Next time that you visit your local electronics store, walk on over to the section selling computer printers. Find the print cartridges. You will notice that print cartridges from Canon are now about 1/3 the cost of a print cartridge from either Lexmark or HP. No. I am not in error. The Canon cartridges are now super cheap and are as low as $8.
By the end of the year, you will notice a downward motion on HP stock.
You can't have it both ways. What's the motivation for a printer mfg to continue to make the hardware at next-to-nothing margins if there is not a significant continuing revenue stream from ink. In not endorsing Lexmark's use of the DMCA here, just pointing out that printer mfgs are in business to make money.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
The initial price of printers will increase, and the corresponding cost of cartridges will decrease. This is a good outcome; the razor-markup model has always been a bit dishonest. Now price and cost will be more closely aligned, so partially-informed consumers will be able to make better purchasing decisions.
It's better for the manufacturers too, because their competition won't be doing it either. They no longer need to "keep up with the Joneses" and engage in shady pricing.
Just void warranty on people/companies who use 3'rd party "ink" unless it's 'certified' to work with the printer.
And for some uses, I can see why a 3'rd party ink is worse in certain printers..
I still like the 5 cartridge cheap-o-ink Epson's. The reps actually encourage by saying "We dont do Lexmarks Scheme of lockins".
Does this mean that HP won't be able to region encode ink cartridges, or at least be a precedent when they are brought to court.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I can't wait for the street corner drug dealer to sue under DMCA that you can only use his trademarked baggies to pack dope.
This was a win for the consumers.
Does anyone know what the status of the DeCSS lawsuits are, and whether this applies? I would also love to see this applied to other things.
But wouldn't this have other implications as well? The notion that a work that is designed merely as a means to function is not copyrightable may have implications for the GPL, would it not? How much code is copyrighted and protected under the GPL that was designed only with function in mind, and nothing else?
What about the code that SCO claims ownership of? Even if it existed, could they in fact have copyright over it, given this ruling?
This is only a problem with inkjet crap printers. Its much more economical to buy a laser printer, even a color laser printer. Sure, the toner is like 100 bucks. But it lasts forever. Especially if its just your house. Plus, laser printers often have network cards making it much easier to network the whole house to use just the one printer. And its higher quality printing that makes copies faster.
Sure, it's expensive to start out, but you can find pretty good cheap used ones on ebay, especially if you only need black and white. And its cheaper than inkjet over the long run. More reliable too.
Personally I think apple needs to re-enter the printer market. They used to make great laser printers.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
yep the trees used for paper production are farmed. So if you print less the land will be used for something else and there will be less trees.
I got sick and tired of having to pay so much for cartridges because I am still a college student and printing out even 50 pages worth of lecture notes and slides can take out around 1/8 of many of those carts. So I paid $150 for a Brother laser printer and it took me 1.5 school years to go through 1 single toner cartridge. Amazing isn't it?
The scary part is that I tell people about this, how all they have to do is sacrifice color and they can go at least 1 school year without paying $20-$30 per cartridge. For my HL-1440, not exactly a high end piece of equipment, a new toner cart costs only $70.00. Even if it were $100.00 it would still be worth the cost. What does it say about America that these college kids, many of whom do in fact have to pay for their own supplies can't be bothered to put down $140-$200 now for a new laser printer so that they can save 3-5x that in at least 1 fulltime school year of printing?
Having had this now for going on 2 years and it still works well, I just don't understand why people who don't NEED color printers opt for the much more expensive inkjet. Most printing is black and white and you can save hundreds of dollars, enough to buy your laser printer several times over, if you get the right model because the toner cartridge it comes with can do at least a few thousand pages. I know I got at around 4,000-5,000 pages out of my first toner cartridge.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Are you saying Canon is dumping cartridges onto the market?
This isn't the case, AFAIK. The reason the Canon cartridges are cheaper is because they are not entire cartridge assemblies like the HP and Lexmark ones are. Canon printers have you replace only the ink tank, rather than the ink tank and entire print head.
+++ATH0
This is really offensive use of the Law and even though I like Lexmark products I wish they would fail as a business, because I beleive in punishing companies though the use of the consumers walets. I am not going to buy their products anymore, one person won't matter but if everybody does this or at least all /.ers it will be a big step.
You really can't defend such a blanket statement such as "just imposing another form of regulations on the market...never does it good". The industries in North America are regulated to hell, whether you realize it or not, but curiously, they haven't gone to hell . . . thing about the free market, it often encourages people and companies to benefit in the short term at the expense of others and of the long term (if you don't, you're beaten out by those who do). Just as laws are vital for our society at large to actually function, so too are some degree of regulations on the marketplace (especially nowadays, when it's far more than a traditional marketplace in literal meaning).
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
$40 for an HP printer and $30 for the cartridge.
$40 for a Canon printer and $8 for the cartridge.
Gosh. Which would you rather buy?
Canon is not dumping the print cartridges. Even at $8, they are highly profitable. At the same time, HP is in big trouble.
The decision includes the phrase "If we were to adopt Lexmark's reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes.". This is interesting.
Just this past weekend, I had a check-engine light in my 2000 VW Golf diagnosed by a fellow VW club member via the use of a scanner made by ROSS-Tech Inc (which is also working on generic OBDII and BMW scanners) via the use of reverse engineering, similar to the way the BIOS of the original IBM PC was reverse-engineered.
As discussed in the article Wired News: Drivers Want Code to Their Cars, automakers don't release all of the diagnostic codes to vehicles, claiming that releasing the codes "would allow independent parts manufacturers to copy components that cost millions of dollars to develop".
However, the way I read the Lexmark article is that doing exactly that is legitimate -- by purchasing the car/printer, the consumer is granted access to the proprietary software inside the item that allows it to function, and can use third-party equipment to service it and keep it in a workable condition.
Perhaps a third-party manufacturer of automotive parts needs to sue an automaker to force release of the diagnostic codes. Or, maybe even the maker of the scanner that was used to reveal why my check-engine light triggered. But even if not, I don't think VW would, say, be able to bring a case against the scanner maker under the DMCA.
(The code was "fuel mixture too lean" and turned out to have been caused by a snapped vacuum hose; fixed in five minutes at no cost by pulling another hose off a soon-to-be-junked parts car.)
Oh... and the Ars Technica guy was right: the DMCA DOES need to go away.
i am a soviet space shuttle
HP isn't lowering prices on the current stock of cartridges; instead, as they are changing to the new sets (56+57+58 and 94/96, 95/97, 99/100 low/high capacity). The new cartridges are just priced for less than what the ones for the old printers cost.
In fact, the 56 black cartridge only costs around $20 now, versus the $35 that the older black cartridge cost. The 94 black costs $20 also, and the high yield (+90% more ink) 96 black that's compatible is around $30. These are using pretty generic prices from most retail stores that sell these cartridges, of course, not any special discount or generic replacements.
I know this stuff because I'm in between IT jobs. It's amazing the stuff you can learn by taking a 'lower end' job like as a sales associate while looking for something more career oriented. Trends can be seen much more clearly when you can view industry changes from two viewpoints.
One of the paradoxes of Intellectual Property is that the IP industry wants it to be treated like real property, exccept for the fact that you can't restrict how customers use real property once it's in their hands. At least not yet.
There is a small company that makes a template for routers -- the woodworking kind, not the networking kind -- for cutting dovetail joints. It's basically a piece of plastic that you clamp onto a piece of wood to guide the router. If you wanted to, you could use the template to make an identical template out of another piece of plastic. To guard against this possibility the manufacturer encloses a license agreement with the template, stating that the customer is specifically not allowed to do this. It further says you are authorized to use the template for personal woodworking projects only, not for business use.
This may be a silly example (although true), but I think there's a clear and present danger that the whacked logic of the IP world could spread like a fungus into the real world, and we could indeed wake up one day to find it illegal to use a Stanley hammer on non-Stanley nails. Frightening -- unless you are Mr. Stanley or his IP lawyer.
One more reason to find out who your representatives are and write them a short note periodically, once is good but once a month is better, urging them to consider the adverse impacts of IP issues on the public domain.
If that image is the only way to load a cartridge then it is legal to copy under copyright law for purposes of interoperability. The DMCA ascpects are something else completely - I don't think this case changes them.
I would know, having worked as a sales rep at an electronics retailer.
There are so many nightmarish stories customers walk into the stores with. Dried up ink, cartridges that run out in a few weeks, broken printers, etc. I never recommended a Lexmark once. Many computer packages were bundled with Lexmark by default, maybe because they're so cheap and there are rebates, but you're better off with other brands.
Oh, and the cartridges. Just as shoddy as the printers. Customers complained of ink drying up after not using the printer for a week. A week. Wee small things too, the ink compartments are. I doubt the ink would last long.
Lexmark will be dead soon even if they had won this lawsuit. Just as well that they lost. People won't have the stupid choice available to them that much sooner.
I guess you could still call it "digital" although not electronic. Lexmark uses a metal tab to prevent you from putting Samsung cartridges in their E210 printer, even though the printer is manufactured by Samsung.
Of course, the Lexmark cartridges cost 50% more.
If anybody still has an E210 and is still shelling out for Lexmark cartridges, please visit How to use a Samsung cartridge in a Lexmark.
And never buy another Lexmark.
Then we will be free of these greedy companies. How far have we gone with the opensource BIOS?
What's unfortunate about this is Lexmark plays the 'Razor Blade Game', a business model where you "don't make money selling razors - give the razors away. Make your money selling BLADES". Lexmark goes by this business model, selling dirt cheap printers. Not just inkjets - they also make laser printers. And then charge a small fortune for the ink or toner, and give you very little of it in each cart. One salesman I know used to joke that "you get more ink in a ballpoint pen than comes with a Lexmark printer". This business model turns sour when your competition (easily) undercuts your (inflated) ink cart prices. The trajedy of this is the consumer usually realizes they are not getting nearly the deal they thought they were until after they've plunked down the money for the printer and their first few replacement ink carts. At that point you have to ask yourself if it's really worth it to chuck your new printer and go buy another one just to "save a few bucks on ink". But then over time those bucks add up easily to more than the price of a new HP or Epson printer.
I'm quite relieved that the DMCA has not proven to assist them in their consumer-lock-in attempts.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Hello,
I have modded you down for the free mac mini link in your sig. That is all.
Redundant? Perhaps. Funny? no, not really, but hey - I'm just re-hashing the same crap I see on /. every day - some of which gets modded funny.
Besides, I'm an engineer - I have no natural sense of humor.
(I've also been working on an NT-4 server all day, which is enough to impair anyone's sense of humor.)
The controlling case here is Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 24 USPQ2d 1561 (9th Cir. 1992). The "Nintendo" bitmap in question, stored as a 48-byte cleartext bitmap in Game Boy and Game Boy Color games and a 156-byte Huffman-compressed bitmap in Game Boy Advance games, serves the same function as the TMSS code in Sega Genesis games.
You are abusing your moderator powers.
"Lexmark had designed their printers to use a proprietary toner cartridge technology which had the result that only Lexmark branded toner cartridges would work in some of their printers. Lexmark's general tactic was to sell discounted toner cartridges with this technology under the assumption that consumers would have to return their cartridges to Lexmark to be refilled or recycled."
So you see, they were doing all this for the good of the environment, not to lock people into their products.............and if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale. email me.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I think that is cruel and inhumane. Trees were not made to be cooped up in little farms, just waiting to die!
I for one, only use paper from free-range rainforests.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Looks like nows a great time to invest in Lexmark.
Anyone want to buy some stock?
As the owner of an HP Color LaserJet 4550N, I can attest to the fact that color is not cheap! A plain black laser printer is a steal compared to an inkjet, but not their colored brethren. I paid about $700 on eBay for the 4550N which had about 30,000 sheets run through it already. Not bad. However, the thing takes four toner cartridges which run over $100 each. Then you have all of the kits that will eventually need replaced; those run around $300 each. Granted, I love the thing to death, but it's expensive to run for color jobs.
Thats pretty amazing. I have a Lexmark X85 all in one (fax, print, scan, photocopy) and its ok besides that fact the ink carts/ink refils already costs an arm and a leg.
It gives me the serious creeps like im being watched or something when I print a document and the robot voice kicks in "Printing has started" or "Failed to communicate with printer".... im waiting for it to say "Don't look behind you".
You are spamming slashdot. Given how many articles there are about the niusence of spam, how can you think it is appropriate to spam here?
Is it just me, or is anyone else annoyed by people who use the words "toner" and "ink" interchangeably? Of course this is nothing new. As anyone who's ever worked in a paint store can tell you, there are always people who come in looking for "brown paint" when they really want stain...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
But I'm curious about the implications this ruling will have on other company's attempts to do a similar thing.
There was a story a while ago about HP region coding their printers, and just recently about BIOS approved cards only in laptops.
I hope this sets some kind of precedent that stops this harmful tactic!
You honestly don't know which is correct? It's stupid (yes, stupid) to even think about it. You cannot fit printers in a razor analogy. Don't even try.
Nobody buys Gillette's for the handle, they buy it for the razor. The handle, like the parent pointed out, is a cheap piece of plastic. Nobody buys razors for the handles. Heck, occasionally in a pinch when I'm on travel and have forgotten to bring a razor I'll just buy a pack of the blades and just hold them in my fingers.
No offence intended, but going for #3 is blinkered geek naivity. Even if a large proportion of Slashdotters boycott Lexmark for this reason, it's the old "mistaking your peer group for a typical cross-section" mistake. I doubt socially-aware geeks make up *that* much of Lexmark's customer base (*) and the stupid sheep that *do* probably don't even know (or care) what the DMCA is.
/.er has probably figured out that Lexmarks are *not* cheap when you factor in consumables, and will avoid them regardless of Lexmark's DMCA abuse.
Sorry, but it's #1.
(*) Especially since the average
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Lexmark has just been trying to hide the true price of printing with their printers, using a classic bait-and-switch con. If you don't actually want to do any printing, then I agree that their printers are quite cheap. But not buying a printer at all is even cheaper, in that case. :)
I'm not interested in just owning a printer. I'm interested in printing. The printer itself is just a tool towards that end. So I don't want it "both ways". I don't care about the price of the printer - I care about the cost of printing. The up-front cost of the printer itself is only a part of that cost, and, more often than not these days, a fairly small part.
The motivation for the printer mfg to sell hardware at low margins should be the same as it is in any other market: competition!
Are also investors/traders in the US stock markets? I wonder if there's enough disapproval to register with the corporation where they live via selling short LXK.... Personally, I'm purchasing put options, although IANAFA and TINIA (I Am Not A Financial Advisor and This Is Not Invesment Advice).
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
Quote from the article: Some day, the DMCA needs to go away.
Although I'm very happy to see this ruling occur, what worries me is that legislatures will see this as a sign that the court system will keep their poorly thought out law from being applied in the worst possible ways and that there is no need to repeal it or rewrite it to be more specific.
I always looked at the cost per page for Black and white and the cost per page for color.
I did own a HP until the price for the ink was was more than the printer.
I bought a Cannon S600. From the research I could find on the cost per page it was the the best. It also has good enough quality for things I do at home.
When I went to purchase a photo printer I looked first at Cannon. The simple fact is that I could reload all the color and black cartiages on the S600 for ~$35 impressed me so much that never even wanted to consider another product.
Now I have 9 cartiages to change but at I can get all the cartiages at once for about $75 if I catch the sale on the package set for the printer.
The point is why spend more on cartiages then you do the printer? It tells me the real value they put on the printers.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
The link will crash your computer if your running Windows and will lock up your Firefox/Galeon/Konqueror/etc. if running Linux.
I'm never gonna buy another lexmark again!, first, they Linux support is reather bad, but the ink cardbridge price is totally insane.
I bought a cheapo Lexmark Z605 a few months back, which was around 50 that day, it included 2 inks (one b/w other color). The cardbridges didn't lasted, I had to buy another set, but then I saw the prices, heck! 30 for b/w and 35 for color, OMG!, that was more than the printer itself!
I buyed only a b/w cartbridge, after it was empty I went for a recharge from a provider near my house, wich will fill it for around $15, but the cardbridge was in bad state and reather tricky to refill, they suggested me to buy another printer, as it was only round $30 for the same printer model.
WTF are they thinking? do I need to trash my printer and buy a new one just to get those damm cardbridges?
Enough of it, i'm gonna buy an HP or a Cannon.
C-x C-c
In this case, the government regulation is required to *create* a free market - in printer cartridges. Besides, it wouldn't be necessary in the first place if it weren't for previous government regulation (the DMCA) that prevented the market from being free.
It is a characteristic of a perfect free market that consumers are able to switch suppliers at any time, at no inconvenience to themselves. Thanks to this court decision, reality is now slightly closer to this ideal, for at least one market.
I refill cartridges for a living at a franchise that is or is becoming the world's biggest refiller of ink cartridges. I have personally refilled well over 8000 cartridges. Straight up, Lexmark are the worst cartridgest to own. They are actually designed to fail. Not as in poorly designed, but designed to fail. Canon on the other hand (besides the poor *nix support) are the best by leaps and bounds. Any Printer related questions, or insight needed, ask away: npearson -at- ece . ubc . ca (pls note the intent of my e-mails posting)
HP is pissing me off due to their intrusive software. It seems really big, bloated and bothers me all the time with "do you wanna update, now, huh, do ya, do ya, do ya?".
I was sold on HP because they used to "just work" (I have a LaserJet 5L that is about 7 years old, and still working fine, a bit slow, and I have had to take a soldering iron to it, but it still works and there is no software required to make it work under Windows or Linux.
So - the next time I buy a printer I have vowed NOT to buy an HP. The next printer I buy will probably be a color laser printer.
Who should it be? Canon, Brother, NEC, Epson? Any suggestions?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
So, what does this mean in terms of CCS?
The EFF was a part of preveting yet another case of the DMCA being used to quash innovation.
/. crowd: http://www.eff.org/endangered/list.php#toner
This is a perfect example of what the EFF has been trying to do on our behalf: and by "our" I especially mean the
The relevent text from the page:
Species: Static Control Components remanufactured Lexmark toner cartridge
Genus: Printer toner cartridge
Threat averted: Overreaching claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
What it is: A printer toner cartridge refurbished by Static Control Components, sold more cheaply than new Lexmark-branded cartridges.
What it lets you do: Toner cartridges are among the most expensive consumables of a laser printer. Lexmark's cartridges include chips with little bits of code that report back to the printer about toner-fill level -- but they also reveal whether or not the cartridge is "Lexmark authorized." The printer will refuse to print if the cartridge isn't "authorized," so Static Control replaced the chips so its refilled cartridges would work in Lexmark printers and report themselves "full of ink."
Why it was endangered: Lexmark wasn't very happy about competing with Static Control for cartridge sales. It sued, claiming that the cartridge-printer "handshake" was a mechanism protecting a copyrighted work, so circumventing the mechanism violated the DMCA. The copyrighted work in question? The "toner loader program" in the cartridge chip.
How EFF helped save it: EFF filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Static Control Components. We argued that the software was no more than a lock-out code, and that the DMCA explicitly permits the creation of interoperable software. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
Have *you* joined yet?
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
You are right in that the volume of the ink cartridges is hard to find on the Canon cartridges. However, you are wrong in saying that the volume is substantially different. I went to Fry's Electronics in the Bay Area, and the sales clerk actually found the volume designation on the Canon cartridge. It is about 9 milliliter. The HP cartridge for an equivalent printer says 11 milliliter.
I don't know where you are getting 42 ml. I am talking BASE MODEL printers here.
This may be offtopic, but this sort of behavior by Lexmark is just one more reason not to buy their junk...
Just look to google to see the best reason...
We've had 6 out of 6 power supplies in Lexmark Inkjets at the company I work at begin to smoke within anywhere from 6 months to a year of purchase (Lexmark Z65's too, not quite a disposable printer at $200+/pop). Luckily we discovered the problem before they caught fire.
Could this be precedent, to force Microsoft to open up
If you're cheap, like me, but want a laser printer, check out the Samsung ML 2150 models. Cost me less than $200 new, with a toner cartrage. Duplexes, hasn't ever jammed, and is generally reliable as anything I've seen. Sure I'm not printing hundreds of pages a day though, but if you want a printer for home use, you'd be hard pressed to find a better deal. Oh and they have several variations so you migh look for 2150 2151 2152 etc.
No. Moderators are chosen because they get modded up. They are /.'s representatives, and they can do no wrong, for they are the embodied will of the people.
:)
We, the people of slashdot, hate you for spamming. The moderators know this, and have acted for us.
p.s. +5 funny please
The arstechnica article says...
Additionally, while the court ruled that the Toner Loading Program is not copyrightable, it agreed that the Printer Engine Program was a copyrighted work. However, the argument that SCC's Smartek chip provided unauthorized access to the Printer Engine Program was dismissed on the basis that it was the consumers' purchase of the printer that established such access, and the program in question was freely available to read electronically in memory. SCC's actions thus constitute a legal replacement of Lexmark's Toner Loading Program.
If that's actually what the judge said (I'll have to read the case when the EFF publishes it), that would set a very interesting precedent. Essentially, it seems it would make hymn perfectly legitimate. In hymn's case, the user has purchased the player and the music, and is authorized to play the music. iTunes has an EULA that Lexmark didn't, so I suspect that will come into play, too.
Here's my writeup about the DMCA, which I wrote because a project of mine might have been subject to its restrictions.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
I actually went looking for a printer recently; I was leaning toward laser, even if black-and-white, until I saw the size of those things. There's no way I could have fit one of those into this Japanese cubicle-sized apartment . . .
One year, were ordered thornless blackberries. When they arrived, there was a type of crude EULA included. They basically said that we weren't allowed to propgate the blackberry vines, which is exceedingly easy to do.
Had those vines survived the summer, I would have passed out cuttings to every one in my family, just to spite em. ;-)
This IP stuff is indeed getting silly.
Method of processing duck feet
Keep in mind that HP recently announced plans to trump cheap replacement cartridges by implementing region locking their cartridges a la DVDs.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
that the DMCA is the RIAA/MPAA's law. If they want the government to protect their market share, they're going to have to buy their own law.
Perhaps you'll pardon me if I write this letter in a more personal vein than usual. I want to tell you about some personal perceptions of mine, primarily because when workable solutions to a problem elude you, sometimes it helps to investigate the development of tribalism as a concept. It is worth noting at the outset that once you understand Lexmark's platitudes, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Lexmark help disrespectful dorks back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof. Lexmark's flimflams use a philosophical device of asking one question, answering a thoroughly different question, and then applying that answer to the original question. Equally important is the fact that it strikes me as amusing that Lexmark complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! It does nothing but complain. Unlike Lexmark, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- it were not actually responsible for trying to force some to live by restrictive standards not applicable to others, then I'd stop saying that we must derail Lexmark's infantile little schemes without the slightest consideration for any screams and complaints that might arise. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: Ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Lexmark would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being officious. Antisocial vigilantism is a disgrace to humanity, but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if we illustrate the virtues that Lexmark lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry.
On the surface, it would seem merely that on this subject, we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from Lexmark and its supporters. But the truth is that we should spread awareness of the dishonest nature of Lexmark's threats. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that I'm not very conversant with Lexmark's background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why Lexmark's fulminations are colored and flavored to appeal to intransigent spoiled brats. My peers believe that Lexmark's announcements have earned it opprobrium, suspicion, resentment, and hatred. While this is unquestionably true, I insist we must add that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point. If Lexmark can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to address the continued social injustice shown by virulent, slovenly televangelists. I wouldn't even mention that certain individuals in intelligence and law enforcement agencies may have overlooked some of Lexmark's more debauched politics if it weren't true. Of all of Lexmark's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "Lexmark is a model organization." I don't know where it came up with this, but its statement is dead wrong. My eventual goal for this letter is to give Lexmark condign punishment. I'm counting on you for your support.
'"[I]nteroperable devices" may use proprietary security systems to lock out unauthorized interoperability, but a technology developed solely for this functional purpose is not copyrightable.'
So does that mean that DRM schemes in general are not copyrightable? Doesn't that mean that all the standard Slashdot bugbears, like DVD/CSS, the stuff in iTunes/AAC, Macrovision, all of Microsoft and Adobe's stuff - and every closed eBook DRM, and every other copy protection that merely locks in a medium to a mandatory "interoperable" player, is not copyrightable? So they're fair game for reverse engineering and workarounds? I'm pretty happy about all that, but it seems too good to be true.
--
make install -not war
We all owe Lexmark gratitude (and nothing else ;) for their determined effort to prove, at great expense, that their kind of DMCA abuse isn't allowed. Without sleazebags testing the limits of the laws defining our rights, and losing, we'd never know where those limits are, until it's too late. Thank you, and good riddance!
--
make install -not war
The Lexmark decision was a nice victory, but the Federal Circuit decided a DMCA case that may well have a bigger impact on the interpretation of the DMCA - The Chamberlain Group v. Skylink Technologies, 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Opinion on Findlaw
The Federal Circuit basically read into the DMCA an "intent to pirate" requirement - simple circumvention isn't enough to violate the DMCA unless you intend to pirate or facilitate piracy of copyrighted works. What effect the ruling will have isn't clear, but it goes MUCH farther than the Lexmark decision. Lexmark basically said (a) that the code contained in the Lexmark printer cartridges wasn't copyrightable and therefore the DMCA couldn't apply, and (b) that in any event, the code was only protected from one form of access, but was completely unprotected via another - i.e. it was not effectively protected. Meaning the 6th circuit didn't really address the big issue - can the DMCA be used to stifle competition?
To get a quick idea of where the Chamberlain Group decision went, read the relatively short (2 page) concurring opinion in Lexmark by Judge Merritt (cite: 387 F.3d 522) Lexmark Opinion on Findlaw.
The big difference about the Gillette razor is that the cheap generic blades always sucked and didn't last very long, and the genuine Gillette brand blades performed an order of magnitude better and lasted a lot longer... actually giving you your money's worth.
In the inkjet printer industry, both the genuine brand name cartridges AND the cheap generics (when and if available) all suck in the value area, they just simply cost way too much per page.
I dearly miss my old beloved original solid-metal Atra razor that gave me a quarter century of excellent shaves before it finally broke... I'm not going to buy any new Gillette products due to the RFID and secret photographing of customers controversy. Been buying Schick disposable Xtreme3 razors lately and they actually give an excellent shave and last a long time, but they feel cheap and lightweight since they are... well... disposeables.
This past weekend I was shopping at a Goodwill (you wouldn't believe the crazy and cheap stuff you can find - and most of it works!), and one of the workers brought out an HP LaserJet 5MP. Not a fast printer, but seeing the "P" said to me "Postscript SIMM" and I prayed it was still in place. A quick check of the printer revealed not only was the SIMM in place, but that 32 meg of RAM was also installed, along with paper and a toner cartridge. It also had an Appletalk adaptor connected. All of the cords, and all of the covers. It was in perfect condition.
I picked it up, took it over to the electrical testing outlet (each store has one or two for this purpose), plugged it in, turned it on, and hit the test print - beautiful output! A little slow, but nice. No streaks, just crisp 600 dpi black and white. I then had it print the diagnostics page - no probs there, either - and it came up with a page count of approximately 43,000! Just a young'un!
I powered it off with a crazy grin on my face, seeing the price tag of $9.99, and knowing I had a wallet full of 20% off coupons...
One sawbuck later and two dollars in change back I was the proud owner of a working Postscript laser printer, perfect for my *nix needs!
Please note - it is not an uncommon occurrance to see HP Laserjets at Goodwill, though this is the first time I have seen a 5MP - most of the time I run across III's and 1100's, occasionally a 6, and never a 4 (yet) - I also once found a color laser printer (don't remember the brand) for $50.00 - but I didn't take it because I remember one of employers purchasing the same machine and spending close to $200.00/ea for the three color toner cartridges (cyan/yellow/magenta), though the black cartridge was fairly cheap...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Actually this is why I personally stopped buying Lexmark. Prior to this, I had three Lexmark printers. When it came time to replace, I went with an HP. Oh, I also picked HP because they have very good Linux support and Lexmark's Linux support sucks or is non-existent.
Inkjet or Laser? Reason I ask is that I have two Lexmark laser Printers (a 4039-10R and a Optra T610) sitting in the room with me and they are fantastic. I've had the 4039 for a decade. Built like tanks, great driver support (linux, windows, OS X and even OS/2 in the past - can even use HP drivers in a pinch), print over 12,000 pages per toner cartrige (works out to less than $0.02 per page in ink versus $0.08-0.15 for an inkjet) and really easy to maintain. I can say first hand that your comment about linux driver support isn't true for Lexmark laser printers.
I haven't used Lexmark's inkjets but if they're anything like the piece-of-crap HP inkjets I've used I'm not surprised you had problems. I have an HP d135 multifunction. Got it about 2.5 years ago and it's broken 3 times. I got one of those ripoff service agreements with Best Buy and I'm glad I did. I guarantee HP or Best Buy has lost money on that unit. I don't print enough in color for them to make their money back on the ink. If I need a lot of color prints I just go to Kinko's. It's cheaper, faster and less aggrivation.
I have an Epson inkjet too. Still has some of the problems common to all inkjets and isn't exactly a tank but it's so far been a better purchase than my HP. Print heads stay aligned better (less wasted ink), has better color accuracy, doesn't try to feed 5 sheets of paper at once and so far has been more reliable.
Point is, that I think most people would be better served with a laser printer these days. They're faster, more reliable, better constructed, have better print quality, cheaper to operate, and you don't have to change toner every third page you print or worry about print head alignment, and generally all around better in every way I can think of except up front cost. I guess they're a bit noisier but not enough to matter. Unless you do almost no printing, a laser is totally the way to go.
I'm biased. Xerox.
disclaimer - poster works for Fuji Xerox
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
I worked for HP for a while - they made it very clear the money was the cartidges. (More than half of the profit of HP) This is important for all of us that re-fill our CARTs to save money! I have friend that is clueless as to how to re-fill. I taught her, and her cartridge "expired" because it was too old. HMMMMM...
My wife doesn't listen to me either...
There are quite a few suppliers of Continious inking systems for Inkjets.
If you do any serious amount of Photo Printing above 7*5 size you should really consider doing going this way. I have two A3+ printers setup like this. One with only B/W inks the other with archival quality small gamut colour inks. The result is that my costs have gone down by around 60% per sheet.
Also, the manufacturers have a habit of changing their ink formulation without notice. This way, you but ink in 500ml Bottles(about a pint!) Finally, you can then get your printer profiled properly so that the colours are more accurate.
Do day to day printing, I use a Kyocera Laser Printer. Very low costs per sheet anyway.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
automakers don't release all of the diagnostic codes to vehicles, claiming that releasing the codes "would allow independent parts manufacturers to copy components that cost millions of dollars to develop".
Currently cars are sold a a price determined by the sum of all costs and revenue streams. A company needs to be able to recoup the costs of the business (development, manufacture, marketing, IT department's coffee, etc) from revenue (selling you the car, offical fluffy dice, parts, and service).
By reducing the potential revenue stream of the parts and service, the costs will need to be recouped in other areas, meaning increased inital cost of the car...
I think that allowing competition in parts and servicing is a good thing... and may lead to cheaper servicing, but it will lead to more expensive cars. Net, Net, you may be a little better off, but you will pay for it somehow...
Those older HP laserjets, such as the LaserJet 4 are most excellent. They are practically indestructable it seems.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The only precedent that it sets is that you can't be sued for bypassing printer region coding or whitelisted hardware.
The difference is easy to remember.
DVD+plus+R and RW discs are for use in TV-recorders. Plus+R for movies you want to keep, and plus+RW for day-to-day recordings. Confusingly, DVD+R discs are still labelled with a stylised "RW".
DVD-minus-R and RW are for use with confidential data which you want to keep hidden from prying eyes. If you have a list of credit card numbers, medical records or whatever, and you want to be sure that nobody will ever be able to read it again, just burn it to a DVD-minus-R.
Well almost. I bought an HP4SI off ebay for $100. (Had to drive 100 miles to pick it up), It had only 7000 copies on the meter!!!!!!!
Age does have problems with these though. The toner cart died of old age, IE: it started LEAKING and an unused repack that I bought which was a shelf queen long before I got it had the same problem (result, pages with about a 10% gray background and streaks). A brand new toner cart ($70) and it prints clean again.
Also my power supply and duplexor had to be replaced as the printer started throwing error codes 55, 54, and 13.2 paper jams on selftest/powerup all the time. (and the printer shop couldn't reproduce the problem which ONLY happened in my house!!!)
Still it's a great printer, if not a bit on the dinosaur size (and WEIGHT!). 32megs of memory and postscript and duplex.
this seems to me to mean that
1. use trade secrets if you want to keep an idea or method secret.
2. use copyright if you don't care if the idea or method is secret, but want to protect your particular implimentation of the secret protected.
3. use a patent, if you don't care if the idea or method is public as long as nobody else can use it for 17 years.
Of course if your interest is more than hypothetical, consult your legal advisors.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I think the cost of printing, long term, is usually the cost of the consumables.
I am presently using an HPLJ-2, very cheap to operate. I can get those toner cartridges for $25, and they last forever. But, the resolution is not that good, and the printer is showing signs of it's age. It jams often, and I'm not sure I can justify a rebuilding, considering how cheap lasers are today.
I suppose inkjets could be reasonably cheap, if I could actually get those refill things to work correctly. In my experience, refill kits have never worked correctly.
I'm somewhat interested in color lasers, but I suspect very high priced tonor, especially for the cheaper printers.
10 years ago, I was happy with my dot-matrix and daisy-wheel. I still have the dot-matrix, can't find any daisy-wheels. Just kidding, I guess.
If Lexmark want to sell printers at a loss and make money on cartridges, that's fine.
But its not clear why that's (a) my concern or (b) the government's concern.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Two parts, Laser and Inkjet, any brand.
/year. They are a LOT cheaper to run than HP if you buy non-genuine refills, with a 3'rd party toner chip. Lawyers and Medical outfits love Lexmark, but Kyocera is up front too, with lowest true real cost per page. Remember to factor in 'Drum' costs on cheapy throwaway laser printers which are designed to pack up early.
For Inkjet, ugly modification needed - drill/melt hole in new cartridge, and install 1/32 capillary action feeder (seal up hole with glue) attached to brand new 'Ink fill bottles', strapped to the side of the printer. Secure the 4 or more capillary tubes to the printer head, so free movement is unimpeeded. This way, the cartridge level never drops, and air never gets in (they add a air activated glue in injets, so they die if you try refilling).
Ditto, with a new printer, take the 1/4 full starter cartridges to your local refiller to be topped up- before you start using them.
Laser Printers.
Some models of Lexmark laser printers work out cheaper than HP printers if you do insane amounts of printing like 50,000 pages
Best way is to buy toner on special, then buy the laser printer to suit.
Lexmark is unhappy, because everyone+dog did/refills HP cartridges, while Lexmark Cartridges had recyclying obstacles, meaning they could charge a premium. That advantage is fading - but they can still pull a prebait (sic) cartridge hattrick, or sue you for not covering up the Lexmuck logo's on reman cartridges.
Bottom line, SCC's $14 chip wipes $200 off an upmarket toner cartrige if bought retail. The razor blade model is in for a whipping. HP has quietly lopped 20% off their consumables. This means amplified pain for Lexmark, if they loose this one, they join the discounting queue.
Replace the Lexmark printer with the Apple Ipod and the ink cartridge with ITunes purchased music and you have the same thing.
I co-oped for Lexmark for a couple of years during school. My main task was reverse engineering HP toner cartridges so that Lexmark could sell a slightly cheaper version.
100% correct. I actually have a need for both an inkjet and a laser printer. (it makes no sense at all if you have a lot of black and white printing to do it on an inkjet). So when Lexmarks first hit the market in this area, I got one of each. I was just as much a sucker as any non-geek at the time. I figured with their relationship to IBM how bad could they be, and the price was attractive.
With the inkjet I was prepared for the industry-wide hit for the cartridges but I was not prepared for the fact that Lexmark has engineered the cartridges to dry up if you don't use them frequently. In my experience, the cartridges would dry up to the point of uselessness within 5 days. This meant that in order to insure that my printer would actually work when I needed it I had to print a color page every day. This of course makes economizing by only using the printer when necessary impossible. Even with refilling the cartridges myself, if I forgot to print daily the cartridge would dry up and become useless.
The laser printer was basically a paper jamming nightmare with parts that literally fell out of the printer when you opened the front output door.
It would be one thing if Lexmark printers were such killer machines that you were willing to put up with the gouging on ink and toner to use them, but what crapboxes!
.......Ya doesn't has to call me Johnson!
My local staples does carry lexmark however it has been a while since I have seen anything other than a low end Cannon or HP printer in one of there discount bundles.
Your local Staples carries low-end Cannons?
(Lights fuse.... BANG!) "Take that ye scurvy Lexmarks!!"
(Notices that the cannonball has gone through the Lexmarks, several more aisles, the wall of Staples itself and has caused extensive damage to 'The Bed Shed' next door)
"Cap'n! They be firin' back at us!"
(Cannonball comes at high speed from The Bed Shed and demolishes a display of overpriced Scanners and Microsoft software)
etcetera....
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Did the trees tell him so?
yep the trees used for paper production are farmed. So if you print less the land will be used for something else and there will be less trees.
Not exactly true, according to these Rainforest Facts
"One pulpwood project in the Brazilian Amazon consists of a Japanese power plant and pulp mill. To set up this single plant operation, 5,600 square miles of Amazon rainforest were burned to the ground and replanted with pulpwood trees. This single manufacturing plant consumes 2,000 tons of surrounding rainforest wood every day to produce 55 megawatts of electricity to run the plant. The plant, which has been in operation since 1978, produces more than 750 tons of pulp for paper every 24 hours, worth approximately $500,000, and has built 2,800 miles of roads through the Amazon rainforest to be used by its 700 vehicles.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Even in loss, Lexmark has had a great deal of benefit from this lawsuit.
Lexmark has likely made enough money due to the 20-month (2/03 - 10/04) injunction to cover all its legal costs.
Lexmark has probably also gained that same amount of time to build market dominance and condition printer users to buy their overpriced cartridges.
Lexmark has (until now) forestalled additional ink cartridge competitors from entering their market due to the perceived threat of DMCA lawsuits.
Lexmark has a higher market share due to these factors, thus their "economy of scale" is much better and they can more effectively compete against future smaller 3rd party ink cartridge manufacturer, thus discouraging them from entering this market in the lawsuit's loss.
Finally, Lexmark was probably only interesting in payback on the "implied discount" on their printers. Given the 20 months of injunction you can probably mark that payback complete.
Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
Lexmark will be dead soon even if they had won this lawsuit.
According to Forbes, in 2003 Lexmark was 2nd in U.S. market share with 17.4%, and 4th (almost 3rd) globally with 13%.
Not quite "dead soon" unless their 2004 numbers really tank...
Share and Enjoy!
Blech. That spoiled my day. Lexmark really deserves to die. Or they should change their business model and improve their products. Here's to hoping their 2004 numbers do drop significantly.
The sad thing is that Lexmark can survive off the ignorant people in the world who have no foresight... so in a sense, Lexmark is kinda... s..m..a..r..t. As much as that hurts to say, it just shows that they have some good knowledge about their customer base. It's just Darwinism at play. Survival of the fitest a.k.a /.ers
I have yet to see a commercial EULA that says "you own your copy of the software." Usually, the first thing they state is "you are purchasing a license to use one copy on one machine ... you don't own squat." Part of the "licensing" process involves tethering the software operation to a specific machine (i.e. using a key that uses the ethernet MAC address as a seed.) Transferring ownership of software is impossible in many situations, and may be prohibited by the license. Similarly, they impose restrictions on the use of the software - there's a different license/price/restriction for "personal use" versus "corporate use."
To go back to the book analogy, do you think the book publisher could prohibit a company from purchasing a book for inclusion in the corporate technical library? Clearly, that's a "non personal use" application, and the book license costs an additional $15k per copy, with an annual maintenance requirement of $1500. Non-payment of the annual manintenance fee results in termination of your book reading priveledges, as outlined in the book's EULA clearly printed on pages iii through xxvii. Oh, and highlighting sections of the book constitutes a modificaiton of the work (per the EULA,) and is considered a violation of the license.
Patents, on the other hand, prohibit you from making a patented device. Patents require disclosure of the invention, and thus place the design information in the public domain. If I go to the USPTO and copy the patent info, which I'm allowed to do, the patent owner can pursue me with legal means if I violate the patent. The software folks want the legal enforcement of a patent, but without the public disclosure part. And they want to maintain the current indefinite-length of a copyright, because a patent expires too soon. The software and entertainment industries are trying to build a hybrid copyright-patent mechanism that gives them all the force of law, but requires none of the contribution back into the public pool. It's a very bad thing.