That’s the thing, though. You don’t have to actually break the encryption to get around this, you need only figure out how to make the printer ignore any putative security chip. This is likely to be significantly more easy than breaking the encryption code and has the added advantage of being permanent. I’ve seen similar schemes being defeated by simply cutting a circuit board trace.
The other thing to note is that measures like this dont work in the long run. All it takes is someone to bring out a simple printer and sell it at a reasonable price that doesnt need proprietary ink cartridges. Would you then buy a HP printer for $70 but be tied into super expensive HP ink or a chinese knock off for $90 that will take any ink. No contest
There was an interesting twist to that case. The chipped Lexmark cartridges were sold under a “prebate” program by Lexmark. Customers who bought those cartridges agreed to use the cartridge only once, and only return it to Lexmark for recycling or refilling. Customers who did not avail themselves of the prebate got unchipped cartridges. It seems to me that Lexmark had a case, but not on DCMA grounds. The customers were guilty of breach of contract, although it was probably impractical to make individual customers give their discounts back. Static Control was helping them breach said contract, though.
Well, there are two things wrong with this scenario:
First, almost no one buys a printer any more. You get them bundled with your computer for “free.” So the question becomes: is Joe Average, consumer without much brains, going to reject a free printer and buy an off brand, simply because he’s aware that the ink cartridges will be expensive? I have my doubts.
Second, printers are not as cheap to make as they often are sold for. Since the money is in the ink, the printer price becomes a classic loss leader. That is, the printer is sold for below cost in order to ensure the future income stream from the ink. Mobile telephones are priced the same way. So the third party computer is not likely to be very cheap if it has much of the functionality of a typical home ink-jet printer.
It seems like a consumer market. Just buy a printer from someone who WILL allow you to refill. The demand drives the product.
Computer compatability issues, much? :dubious:
No.
You don’t even need to do that. I have a lexmark printer (and yes, it does claim using non-brand ink voids the warranty. That expired months ago, though) and I refilled the cart. It claims not to have ink, but if you tell it to print anyway, it will.
Not all printers require a resetter in order to use a refilled cart. Lexmark is one of those which does not. Brands which do need the resetter include Canon, Epson and some models of HP printers.
Regarding after-market cartridges voiding warranties: I believe Epson claim something like two thirds of all reported faults with their printers are caused by third-party cartridges. Their justification for voiding warranties is that cartridges made by other companies often damage their printers. I have no idea how accurate this is, as clearly Epson have a financial motive both for refusing to cover some repairs under warranty and for scaring customers into using only their own inks.
I would dispute the claim that few people buy printers because they come bundled with computers, as I work in a computer department and sell printers all day long, but I am in a different country so perhaps things are different here. It’s worth noting that our systems are rarely bundled with a printer - I’ve seen it once in six months.
I usually advise customers who are tossing up between a couple of different models to wander over to our cartridge section and compare the prices to help them make their decision. It’s usually the best piece of advice I can offer.
Compatabiity between computer & printer is arranged by contract.
If computer manufacturers agree to it, independent-minded printer manufacturers will be frozen out.
Modification of the firmware is one thing that the OEMs are frowning upon and are trying to sue people over. I don’t quite understand the logic behind it but I think they’re selling you the printer, but licensing you to use the firmware as-is without modification and they can get you on a license infringement if you modify the firmware.
I’ve been in the refill industry since the HP LaserJet II was still in its infancy…I don’t think inkjet even existed yet back then. It would be undesirable for someone in my industry to sell a toner cartridge that would require any kind of modification of the printer to make a recycled cartridge work. The consumer wants to be able to put the cartridge in and print, regardless of where they buy it from. But the consumer also wants to be able to buy the cartridge from whoever they want and if they can save 25% by buying a remanufactured cartridge (or even save 75% on a drill-and-fill cartridge…screw print quality), the consumer feels they should have that right.
The Non-Prebate cartridges were still chipped. They actually functioned the same as the Prebate cartridge except that the printer knew the difference and you could look it up in the control panel operations to find out which you had and probably display the entire license agreement if you wanted to.
To this day, most remanufacturers won’t touch a Prebate cartridge. Static Control sells aftermarket chips for the Non-Prebate cartridges so that they can be refilled.
I personally don’t fool with any of the Lexmark lasers that use a chip simply because they’re complicated cartridges to get a good clean print out of after they’ve been reassembled. They use a slightly different process than the traditional laser printer (Canon & HP) and are a LOT more sensitive to contaminants such as dust.
Epson inkjet cartridges don’t have the printhead built into them like HP and Lexmark inkjet cartridges.
The aftermarket ink can clog up the printhead in the Epson printer (just like Epson ink can clog the printhead), requiring service…the printhead isn’t user-changeable.
Therefore, it’s a legitimate claim by Epson that the aftermarket ink damaged the printer. It’s not voiding the warranty, just voiding the warranty for that particular repair.
For example, if you’re using aftermarket ink and the pickup roller wears out prematurely, they still have to cover that under warranty. The pickup roller has nothing to do with the printing process…all it does is pull the paper out of the tray and feed it into the printer. At that point, they’re probably going to tell you that the Hammermill Bond paper you’re using is out of spec and wore out the pickup roller, blah blah blah…and you should’ve used the special Epson inkjet paper that’s listed in your owner’s manual.
Just as a reminder to Harmonious Discord, and any others who have similar thinking, I’m still wanting to know under what legal theory would this practice by the OEMs be illegal?
Whatever laws cover a monopoly and the consumer’s right to purchase materials from the most competitive source. Antitrust? I asked, because I don’t know, and want to know if they can legally do this. Apparently it’s muddy enough that no lawyers have said anything either way.
Antitrust theory.
If not, then there would be no market for aftermarket car parts, aftermarket computer parts, aftermarket electrical devices… pretty much aftermarket anything.
I tell you want. Go grab our car’s warranty booklet read the part about routine maintenance. I will guarantee you that it will tell you in plain language that while you do have to do the routine maintenance to keep the warranty in effect, it does not have to be done at a dealer, or done with factory parts. Now contrary to what some people around here think, car companies do not employ idiots. Particularly in their legal department. So the question becomes why in the fuck would they put that in your warranty booklet if doing so cost them business?
Gee let’s think about this for a minute. What could possibly make a car company put something in their warranty booklet that costs them sales… A law maybe?
Do you have any other reasonable explanation?
You are the lawyer, you explain to me (From a legal perspective) what is different about routine maintenance on a car, and replacing print heads on a computer printer.
I will be right here waiting… 
And, as has already been pointed out, nothing about the technology in question precludes aftermarket print cartridges. So again, I ask, under what legal theory would this be precluded? Just wringing hands and saying “antitrust” won’t get you very far.
I will make an assertion, if you like one: the law does not contain any prohibition of this type of activity by the printer manufacturers. There, now you have an answer. Like, Duh.
(Anyone who wants to whip up a counter-argument should come prepared with citation to statutes and/or case law)
I don’t think that’s the case. The intent is to make it impossible to manufacture a compatible cartridge :“CRI plans to create a secure chip that will allow only certain ink cartridges to communicate with certain printers.” My take on this is that the printer manufacturers would like to create a non-refillable, non counterfeitable ink cartridge. It might be possible to circumvent these measures, by I can think of ways to make it extremely difficult to do. If they succeed, the after-market printer ink refill business is dead (for these new printers).