Cryptography To Frustrate Printer-Ink Piracy

Zack Melich writes with news of a new front about to open in the war printer manufacturers wage with cartridge counterfeiters, refillers, and hardware hackers. A San Francisco company, Cryptography Research Inc., is designing a crypto chip to marry cartridges to printers. There's no word so far that any printer manufacturer has committed to using it. Quoting: "The company's chips use cryptography designed to make it harder for printers to use off-brand and counterfeit cartridges. CRI plans to create a secure chip that will allow only certain ink cartridges to communicate with certain printers. CRI also said that the chip will be designed that so large portions of it will have no decipherable structure, a feature that would thwart someone attempting to reverse-engineer the chip by examining it under a microscope to determine how it works. 'You can see 95 percent of the [chip's] grid and you still don't know how it works,' said Kit Rodgers, CRI's vice president of business development. Its chip generates a separate, random code for each ink cartridge, thus requiring a would-be hacker to break every successive cartridge's code to make use of the cartridge."

Comments

Piracy?

[Rix]

That's absurd enough when applied to simple copyright infringement, but there's absolutely nothing illegal about after market ink. In fact, these sort of shenanigans should be illegal themselves. Let the printer manufacturers compete fairly.

Re:Piracy?

[mrbluze]

That's absurd enough when applied to simple copyright infringement, but there's absolutely nothing illegal about after market ink. In fact, these sort of shenanigans should be illegal themselves. Let the printer manufacturers compete fairly.

I doubt it will really work. The technique itself will be patented and will come at a cost to printer manufacturers to implement, whereas it will make the printers particularly unattractive to anyone on a budget.

Everybody, even my grandma, knows that the real cost is in the consumables. People can easily make the calculation, eg: "let me see, I spend $30 more for printer Y but I get to refill, which costs me $15 less each time. Hmmm, what a tricky decision - not!"

Re:Piracy?

[owlstead]

"I doubt it will really work. The technique itself will be patented and will come at a cost to printer manufacturers to implement, whereas it will make the printers particularly unattractive to anyone on a budget."

That's wishfull thinking. You can easily make chips for a very small fraction of the price of these cartridges. So much so that any "piracy" that is being stamped out will mean more profit for the original manufacturer.

Chips in mass production have two mayor cost components: design and die-size. Now I don't know how much IP overhead there will be, but rest assured that the variable costs (related to die-size) will be extremely low. Especially since some of these cardridges tend to already contain electronics.

Re:Piracy?

[arekq]

Who said it was illegal?

The one who use the word "piracy"!

Re:Piracy?

[sdnoob]

>> Please RTFA.....
>> Who said it was illegal?

>> They're just trying to minimize profit loss, and I don't blame them.

well, if printer manufacturers would just sell their hardware (and consumables) at a price that reflects the actual cost to produce (each item type) there would be no lost profits.... this whole 'make the money on ink' is bullshit.

and besides, isn't this company just wasting their time? "circumventing" restrictions in printer consumables was already ruled to not be a violation of the "it's Digital, Me Copy it Anyway" act? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int'l_v._Stat ic_Control_Components

Re:Piracy?

[UnrealisticWhample]

But I think the wider issue is, the continuing attempts to prevent 3rd party printer cartridges, shows blatant violation of antitrust laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitru st_law/ Its about time legal action was taken against these companies.
Yup. Controlling the aftermarket ink and toner cartridges is a blatant violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Also, the standard practice of scaring consumers into thinking that their warranties are going to be voided by even looking at the refilled cartridges is in direct violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

So, why are things so screwed up? HP, Lexmark, Canon and Epson have much larger legal departments than remanufacturers.

hacked in 3 seconds:

[Anonymous Coward]

Decided to buy a different printer.

Re:hacked in 3 seconds:

[speaker of the truth]

These companies can sell printers at a loss and in bulk, thus making it impossible for their smaller competitors to compete, and make up the difference in printer cartridges. Your average Joe won't look beyond the initial printer sale.

Defective by Design

[saibot834]

It is Defective by Design. Don't buy this stuff

misquoted

[BiggerIsBetter]

The company's chips use cryptography designed to make it harder for customers to use off-brand and counterfeit cartridges.

Fixed that for you.

Re:misquoted

[haakondahl]

Cryptography To Frustrate Printer-Ink Competition

Fixed that for ya.

Restricting or Denying Consumers Choice?

[jombeewoof]

Sounds like business as usual here in the Corporate States of Amerika.
That's like saying I can only use Dodge Brand gas in my car, and my wife could only use Toyota.

RIAA and Epson in the same tree

[eebra82]

Here we go again. "Official" printer ink is more expensive than heroin, but instead of competitive pricing, they go hand in hand with RIAA's marketing folks (read: more competition equals pricier products).

If they had ink cartridges with aggressive pricing in the first place, people would buy the factory-made ink simply because it would sound like a safe choice. At least I would.

Re:This has been tried Before

[jombeewoof]

Most certainly, but it seems to be almost cyclical.

1. Corruption becomes out of control
2. Profit!!
3. Locals get pissed, get corruption back to acceptable levels.
4. Locals become complacent, stop keeping their good eye on officials
5. Corruption becomes out of control
6. Profit!!

I'm no genius but, I can see a slight pattern developing here.

Nice business plan ...

[haraldm]

... for the "pirates". Since this is going to make "official" ink cartridges more expensive, this will firstly raise the "pirates"' revenues, making it more rewarding to produce counterfeit cartridges to begin with. Duh. Each time in history, when something was forbidden or made illegal, the criminals made more money, like during prohibition in the 30s. As soon as the prohibition was cancelled, the alcohol mafia gangs had to look for different businesses. When will people learn.

Re:Anti trust?

[Yvanhoe]

Anyway, reverse engineering for compatibility purpose is protected by law in several European countries but you know, when we try to make a law to force compatibility between devices, this is dubbed a "anti-iPod, anti-Apple" law...

Could we please drop the phrase *right now*

[Qbertino]

Could we please drop the phrase 'printer-ink piracy' and the concept of whatever the f*ck it's supposed to mean right now! Thank you.

This has already been outlawed in the US

[gelfling]

Epson and Lexmark both lost class action suits brought against them for building technical blocs in thier hardware which would lock out 3rd party ink carts. And if the printer companies think they would survive a concerted effort by Indian and Chinese vendors to replace them in the home/SOHO market they are smoking the same weed that the RIAA uses. So I say let them try. They will see that market dry up.