How can printer manufactures get a way with requiring you to use only printer ink they make when you own their printer? This crosses the line. They already cancel the warranty, if you use other ink. This new trick will stop the printer from working. How is this any different than a after market manufacturer supplying parts for your car or PlayStation after you own the item. The courts have upheld the rights of people to buy parts from other manufactures to maintain equipment, so how is a printer different. The companies will be forcing a monopoly on the ink supply. I’m not concerned that one use is to stop people from selling mislabeled cartridges. The main purpose is to eliminate competition in the ink supplier market. I’m looking for how this is or isn’t legal people.
They make their money on the ink. That’s why they’re doing it. The legality will probably be determined by class-action lawsuit. But the manufacturers’ lawyers have clearly decided that it’s worth it to try.
Yeah, I know. I wish they would just charge a reasonable price for the printer, and a reasonable price for the ink, and then both the manufacturers and consumers will be happy. With the current system, both sides go nuts. Why can’t we just play fair?
Read the article more carefully. It won’t be illegal to have your cartridge refilled by someone else. It won’t be illegal to buy a remanufactured and filled by someone else cartridge. They’re only going after the people who make counterfeit cartridges and sell them as the branded product.
I have a $50 printer which came with my Dell. It works just fine. Why should I pay Dell $35 for a new cartridge, when I can buy one for $25 that has been refilled by someone. And, now I"ve discovered Walgreens will fill my cartridge for under $10. They do tell you that they have to remove a thingy(how technical) which shows how much ink is left. But who cares.
That’s not what I’ve heard. My understanding is that the printer manufacturers are trying to prevent ANY third-party from manufacturing compatible cartridges. Since the OEM cartridges have a counter in them, once they are used up they WON’T be re-fillable. It’s not just about counterfeiting.
My use of illegal was for the legality of printer manufacturers to do this, not the legality of filling the cartridge with ink.
Their use of the encryption chip will prevent other cartridge makers from selling you a new cartridge they made. I have purchased cartridges in the past manufactured totally by some other company. They were two thirds the cost.
Some cartridges currently have a chip that tells the printer the cartridge has no ink available. Refilling these cartridges doesn’t work. You currently can purchase a refillable cartridge which allows you to refill and the refill cartridge chip lets you use the cartridge again.
Once they put encryption on the cartridges, you can be sure that the companies that refill ones you send them, won’t be able to reset the chip to indicate the ink is full.
Yes, it does. You need to get a chip resetter for that particular brand of cart. They are readily available at places which sell ink refill kits and supplies.
That’s wrong. If they cancel the warranty for using aftermarket ink, they’re in violation of antitrust laws. It’s pretty clear cut. They can only void the warranty if the aftermarket ink cartridge does damage to the machine. Then it’s the responsibility of the aftermarket manufacturer to cover the repair/replacement.
I also noticed the word piracy in the OP. This probably refers to making an aftermarket chip or a chip resetter. Because the chip contains “code” the OEM tries to claim that “code” is protected by the DMCA. See Lexmark v Static Control Components.
Static Control supplies imaging products such as toner, drums and other parts for remanufacturing laser toner cartridges. Lexmark tried to claim that the aftermarket chip that Static was selling violated copyrighted code or software. Static claimed that the code was theirs and not the same as what Lexmark was putting into the OEM chips. Static Control won.
That’s referring to counterfeit cartridges, which are often made overseas and labeled and packaged to look like they are from the OEM. That’s a legitimate concern for the OEM.
I’m a little confused. Getting back to the OP, just what law does the poster think is being violated? The OEM is getting around the limitations imposed by the ruling in the Lexmark case by making it impractical for a TPM to reverse engineer the “code” since the “code” changes from cartridge to cartridge. So what law does this violate?
Now, if the OEM institutes an encryption system of this nature, AND the OEM refuses to allow the licensing of the system to legitimate TPM’s who wish to engage in refilling business, THEN I suppose you might have some anti-trust concerns, though I’m still at a loss to describe exactly what part of the anti-trust laws would be being violated.
It’s true that the quote said “currently”, but so what? The cartridges will have a counter in the future, too. But that doesn’t mean that you will be able to reset it and reuse them.
Just because you know that, that doesn’t mean that everyone reading this thread understands that the printer manufacturers are trying to completely eliminate the third-party and refill markets.
