Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Protects Consumers' Right To Refill Ink Cartridges In Precedent-Setting Lexmark vs Impression Case (hothardware.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday companies give up their patent rights when they sell an item, in a ruling that puts new limits on businesses' ability to prevent their products from being resold at a discount. The ruling is a defeat for Lexmark International, which was trying to stop refurbished versions of its printer cartridges from undercutting its U.S. sales. It's also a blow to companies like HP and Canon that sell their printers for a relatively low cost with the idea that they will recoup money on sales of replacement cartridges. From a report: Lexmark originally set its sights on Impression Products, a small company that specializes in remanufacturing print cartridges for resale at prices much lower than what a customer would pay for a "genuine" Lexmark product. These cartridges often have no noticeable difference in performance compared to genuine ink or toner cartridges -- the only real difference is that customers can save a lot of money by going the remanufactured route. This secondary market for cartridges not only has implications for regular Joes looking to save a buck, but also businesses that are always looking to cut costs.
Both format shifting (ripping) and making backup copies have long been considered legal under fair use in the US. You just have to make sure to delete any copies if you resell the original. You also cannot share the copies you made with anyone else.
They do, by patenting the connector on the end of the handle.
Sure cheap lasers are great for text, they don't do a good job of photos though ;) I personally have a brother laser sitting right next to my large format inkjet photo printer.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Some of the black laser printers are somewhat affordable, but I've never seen an affordable color laser printer and even the black laser printers usually cost more than most color inkjets. Ink still has a place until that changes.
The cost of the unit itself is pointless to discuss when it is the cost of the consumables that actually make the difference.
I've yet to find an inkjet cartridge last anywhere near as long as laser toner.
One might even feel like the court, with it's unanimity is trying to tell the Federal Circuit that it really wants to stop having to hear all these patent cases. The opinion was delivered by the Chief Justice who spared no words in telling the Federal Circuit that it needs to do a much better job.
This venerable principle is not, as the Federal Circuit dismissively viewed it, merely "one common-law jurisdiction's general judicial policy at one time toward antialienation restrictions."
And
The Federal Circuit reached a different result largely because it got off on the wrong foot.
I agree. I used to work for a major printer and print-engine manufacturer, as a senior support tech for laser printers. ("Senior" as in "if I have to escalate your issue, I call the product engineers directly.")
For one thing, not the difference between refilled and remanufactured cartridges. A refilled cartridge has just had more toner added; a remanufactured cartridge should have had the optical photoconductor (OPC) drum replaced as well (but too often, does not). While it's likely that the OPC will last much longer than one fill of toner, it's not guaranteed. In fact, if you have a laser printer for occasional printing at home, chances are you replace the toner cartridge when the OPC wears out from age and starts causing image defects, not when the toner runs out. If you send that cartridge to a place that refills it, the next user will inherit those image problems.
The remanufacturers don't use the same quality toner and OPC, either. The xerographic process is... finicky. Everything has to be just right for it to work well. The entire print engine is designed around specific physical and electrochemical properties of the toner. If your reman'd cartridge uses toner that's got a different charge, or melts at a different point, or was ground too thick or too thin... it's not going to work as well. If the replacement OPC isn't well-matched to the wavelength of the laser in your printer, it's not going to work as well. If the replacement OPC has a too-thin coating... Well, you get the picture.
If you're using a laser printer for light-duty work, you're absolutely better off going with OEM cartridges. If you don't print enough to use up the toner, chances are the cartridge will have a practical lifespan of about five years. The extra cost of the OEM cartridge over five years is negligible. The chances of an aftermarket cartridge failing, working poorly, or lasting a fraction of that time are pretty good.
I'm not as familiar with inkjets, but I do know that ink isn't just ink. Your inkjet is designed for ink of a particular viscosity, with a certain chemistry, and the software assumes that the ink will be a certain precise color. If you use an aftermarket "close enough" ink, it may clog, run, smear (because it dries too slow), or result in screwed-up colors in your photos.
Lexmark tried that and lost. Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components, 387 F.3d 522.
Epson and Canon currently sell consumer grade printers with built in continuous ink systems. All you do is pour ink from a bottle into the printer. Sure, the same printer that would cost $80 on the razorblade model is $250, but that's already a pretty good option for people who print enough to use refilled cartridges already.
If lexmark does what you suggest, it will destroy their printer business.