3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arthur Entlich
  • Start date Start date
A

Arthur Entlich

Epson has succeeded in stopping the distribution of most 3rd party ink
cartridges through a successful lawsuit. I personally question the
wisdom of the court in this case and believe it may prove to swing a
shift in the color inkjet industry.

Here is the Epson press release:

If you have not yet read it yet, here is the original Epson press release:

http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/2007/news_20071022_2.htm

Art
 
If I had to give up third party inks I would give up my Epson printer.

I paid for my Epson printer.
I pay for each pack of Epson paper.
I will not be forced to buy exhorbitantly overpriced Epson ink.
 
Arthur Entlich said:
Epson has succeeded in stopping the distribution of most 3rd party ink
cartridges through a successful lawsuit. I personally question the wisdom
of the court in this case and believe it may prove to swing a shift in the
color inkjet industry.

Here is the Epson press release:

If you have not yet read it yet, here is the original Epson press release:

http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/2007/news_20071022_2.htm

Art
Click to expand...

The article doesn't really specify what carts/tanks are affected, so I
wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
 
The article doesn't really specify what carts/tanks are affected, so I
wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
Click to expand...

I think someone like Lyson is a bigger threat since their inks rival
Epson OEM. I don't think they can slap Lyson out of the market
 
Sounds great.  Maybe now the fly by niters will disclose the truth.

Arthur Entlich wrote: Epson has succeeded in stopping the distribution of most 3rd party ink cartridges through a successful lawsuit.  I personally question the wisdom of the court in this case and believe it may prove to swing a shift in the color inkjet industry.

Here is the Epson press release:

If you have not yet read it yet, here is the original Epson press release:

http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/2007/news_20071022_2.htm

Art
 
There are more documents available. It concerns ALL desktop models, and
if signed into law by GW Bush (as is expected), will likely put an end
to import into the US or manufacture by US companies or any cartridges
which violate the patents, not only for Epson products, but probably all
inkjet printer models, as the law will be broad enough to "protect" all
manufacturers of patented cartridges.

Epson has a new website dealing with just this issue directed to
manufacturers and importers of cartridges fitting their printers.

It is found at:

http://itc.epson.com/

I understand there are about 500 pages involved in the court documents.

I believe this is just the thin edge of the wedge, and more will follow
from other manufacturers, and that Epson and others will also attempt to
make chip resetters non-functional and or illegal to manufacture.

At this point, my sense is that 3rd party inkjet printer companies,
consumers, and any lawyers looking into class action based upon
anti-trust legislation or consumer protection laws regarding design
flaws or undocumented restrictive features such as the shut down when
waste ink pads are deemed full (which is not documented, and creates an
"end of life" condition which is relatively costly to repair
legitimately) need to be pursued legally.

Since probably all printer manufacturers will jump on any new
legislation to protect their ink sales, I cannot suggest one brand over
another at this time.

Art
 
They will be able to make the ink, assuming it doesn't infringe on any
Epson patents, but the cartridges are another matter entirely.

Art
 
Arthur Entlich said:
There are more documents available. It concerns ALL desktop models, and
if signed into law by GW Bush (as is expected), will likely put an end to
import into the US or manufacture by US companies or any cartridges which
violate the patents, not only for Epson products, but probably all inkjet
printer models, as the law will be broad enough to "protect" all
manufacturers of patented cartridges.
Click to expand...

The ITC ruled that Epson's patents were valid, and that they were infringed
upon by the third parties. Patents law is in place to protect the original
inventors for a period of time. To suggest that the ruling should not go
forward would require that you either believe 1) the patents are not valid
or 2) that patent protection should not be applied in the US. Which is your
position? If 1), then which patents specifically do you believe are
invalid, despite the ITC's ruling?

- Bob Headrick
 
Bob said:
The ITC ruled that Epson's patents were valid, and that they were
infringed upon by the third parties. Patents law is in place to
protect the original inventors for a period of time. To suggest that
the ruling should not go forward would require that you either believe
1) the patents are not valid or 2) that patent protection should not be
applied in the US. Which is your position? If 1), then which patents
specifically do you believe are invalid, despite the ITC's ruling?
Click to expand...

My problem with the whole OEM ink/patent issue is that the patents they
are using to shut down the sale of third party cartridges have nothing
to do with making the printer better for the consumer. They only exist
to force buyes to purchase high priced OEM ink. Would the Government
allow Toyota, Ford GM etc. to sell vehicles that only burned OEM
gasoline, used OEM oil or tires? Of course they wouldn't and letting
printer manufacturers do the same is just as wrong. IMO, patent law is
meant to protect a product that is innovative and new to the market and
not to protect an arbitrary cartridge configuration/chip that means
nothing to the functionality of the overall product. At least I can do
one thing...... never buy Epson products of any type.
 
My problem with the whole OEM ink/patent issue is that the patents they
are using to shut down the sale of third party cartridges have nothing
to do with making the printer better for the consumer.
Click to expand...

So? Patent infringement is patent infringement. Benefit to the
consumer has nothing to do with it.
They only exist
to force buyes to purchase high priced OEM ink.
Click to expand...

I think so too. Epson claims a different reason.
Would the Government
allow Toyota, Ford GM etc. to sell vehicles that only burned OEM
gasoline, used OEM oil or tires?
Click to expand...

Why would the government stop Toyota, Ford, or GM from doing that if
it was a patented gasoline or tire? It wouldn't be illegal for them to
do so. Stupid and foolish, but not illegal.
Of course they wouldn't and letting
printer manufacturers do the same is just as wrong. IMO, patent law is
meant to protect a product that is innovative and new to the market and
not to protect an arbitrary cartridge configuration/chip that means
nothing to the functionality of the overall product.
Click to expand...

Epson obviously thinks differently. The court agreed.
At least I can do
one thing...... never buy Epson products of any type.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't buy Epson products for the same reason, but chipping
their printer cartridges isn't illegal, just greedy.

Bill
 
Bill said:
So? Patent infringement is patent infringement. Benefit to the
consumer has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

That is my point. They are using the patent system to force their
printer buyers to use OEM ink. It does nothing to improve the function
of the printer. Because it is legal it doesn't make it right.
I think so too. Epson claims a different reason.
Click to expand...

Anyone with more than two neurons in their skull knows Epson is lying.
Why would the government stop Toyota, Ford, or GM from doing that if
it was a patented gasoline or tire? It wouldn't be illegal for them to
do so. Stupid and foolish, but not illegal.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't believe they can prevent after market parts suppliers
from selling compatible parts for any vehicle. If the automakers could
get away with it they would be using it to their advantage.
Epson obviously thinks differently. The court agreed.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't make it right or mean it will stand. It is just one legal
decision that hopefully will be challenged. The third party vendors
need to pool their resources and effort to make a serious challenge.
Yes, I don't buy Epson products for the same reason, but chipping
their printer cartridges isn't illegal, just greedy.
Click to expand...

I never stated it was illegal.
 
Isn't it funny that nobody goes after the people who manufacturer or re-manufacturer toner
cartridges ? I see there's already color toner cartridges for allot of the new color laser printers
on the market..... No there's allot of patent infringement there to complain about!!!!


So? Patent infringement is patent infringement. Benefit to the
consumer has nothing to do with it.


I think so too. Epson claims a different reason.


Why would the government stop Toyota, Ford, or GM from doing that if
it was a patented gasoline or tire? It wouldn't be illegal for them to
do so. Stupid and foolish, but not illegal.


Epson obviously thinks differently. The court agreed.


Yes, I don't buy Epson products for the same reason, but chipping
their printer cartridges isn't illegal, just greedy.

Bill
Click to expand...

Brian..........

Kill filters - The Enema Of The Usenet !!!!!
 
I own eight very much older Epson printers (which are not the
disposable junk rubber-band and chewing gum constructed consumer
things they are now selling at Costco and Office Depot -- that have
each printed thousands upon thousands of pages of excellent photo
quality 4-color (CMYK) prints for me with very few problems using
exclusively aftermarket carts). I have no intention of trashing them
on the basis of this decision.

There already are, and will be more, suppliers who have "adjusted" to
this legal "inconvenience" and despite the fact that it may take some
effort, users should not despair in their efforts to continue to
obtain quality remanufactured or compatible carts for their Epson
printers. As with everything else: "caveat emptor", of course. Iif you
really give a damn, dont give up and spend each $20 - $30 for Epson
OEM carts you will will be still able to get for $5 (or less).

Also, good luck to Epson on the great PR that this will generate for
their company. Anyone with connections to any media -- major or
otherwise -- (local newspapers or mags that don't of course depend
upon Epson for ad revenue -- who obviously won't publish criticism of
this action by theirs), make a few phone calls or send them a story
idea. You might just get it published!
 
anonymous said:
I own eight very much older Epson printers (which are not the
disposable junk rubber-band and chewing gum constructed consumer
things they are now selling at Costco and Office Depot -- that have
each printed thousands upon thousands of pages of excellent photo
quality 4-color (CMYK) prints for me with very few problems using
exclusively aftermarket carts). I have no intention of trashing them
on the basis of this decision.

There already are, and will be more, suppliers who have "adjusted" to
this legal "inconvenience" and despite the fact that it may take some
effort, users should not despair in their efforts to continue to
obtain quality remanufactured There aren't any.
or compatible carts
Click to expand...
Just a word used by fly-by-niters
for their Epson
printers. As with everything else: "caveat emptor",
Click to expand...
of course.
Click to expand...
Iif you
really give a damn, dont give up and spend each $20 - $30 for Epson
OEM carts you will will be still able to get for $5 (or less).

Also, good luck to Epson on the great PR that this will generate for
their company. Anyone with connections to any media -- major or
otherwise -- (local newspapers or mags that don't of course depend
upon Epson for ad revenue -- who obviously won't publish criticism of
this action by theirs), make a few phone calls or send them a story
idea. You might just get it published!
Click to expand...

I do agree that OEM ink is way overpriced. It is like an oligopoly.
 
No, Bob, I believe patents which have the sole or principal purpose of
restrictive trade, to violate or attempt to confound anti-trust laws or
basic competition, involve predatory pricing, or gouging, or cause
forced purchase of consumables in opposition to tying legislation, as
per the Sherman and Clayton acts, and others, should be very carefully
considered and that the ITC may not be the best or only organization
which should be involved in reviewing such decisions.

Don't YOU believe that environmental impact should come before economic
protection or protection of intellectual property? Or is business just
supposed to be given a free ride in your world regardless of how
negatively it impacts on the well-being of the planet? You asked me what
I believe, well I believe companies which create negative environmental,
or social consequences by their marketing methods should be fined or
legislated into compliance. Basically, they should PAY the costs of
reversing the damage they do.

The time of monopolistic economic policies which only benefit larger
businesses needs to end, and the sooner the better. Unfortunately, we
live in a sad state of affairs in North America right now, with very
skewed political viewpoints that shows little to no awareness of the
environmental impact these types of policies are creating. Luckily,
Europe has a few more neurons contained in their leaders' heads.

Consumers need to start demanding changes, and I personally commend
those who find ways around unethical "patent protection". We need to
coordinate legislation so that it isn't so specialized, and full
consequences are considered. It is exactly the type of isolated
decision making that the ITC makes that leads us down these dark paths
of illogic.

Sadly, the business model Epson is following was substantially in
response to HP's bringing this business model into the printer industry.
I personally believe the founders of the company would be ashamed of
what HP did in this area. It is wasteful, it is not sustainable, it is
deceptive in its lack of transparency regarding real costs of output to
the end user.

I realize you have a personal ax to grind in this area, having been
previously employed in the cartridge division of HP for many year. My
stock portfolio hasn't contained any printer manufacturers since I sold
off my last HP shares in 2004. I disposed of my HP stock when they
kicked out Walter Hewlett during the Compaq purchase, and I have never
looked back. I am, however, seriously considering buying some Kodak up
again. ;-)

Art
 
I agree with Michael, in general, any real benefits to the end user are
second thoughts to try to convince the end user they are benefiting from
the patented technologies which are there to protect ink sales.

I suggest people try to snatch up some of the older pre-chip printers.
The Epson 880, 850, 900 and 980, 1180, and 3000, and a few more in their
"Photo" series were great printers and you can refill the cartridges
with an eyedropper or squirt bottle. Some of those older versions not
only were designed well and reliably but used separate black and color
cartridges and cleaning systems so you could independently clean each.
Back to the future.

BTW, Michael, unfortunately, don't think for a minute that HP, and
Lexmark aren't watching these ITC decisions very closely, or that they
are opposed to them. In fact, they each have had their own court cases
to restrict 3rd party access to consumers. Not sure what Canon has been
up to other than having a nearly crack-proof ink monitoring chip in
their current line of printers.

Art
 
Actually, legislation does exist to make "tying" of parts, consumables
etc to a product purchase. The laws are hundreds of years old and have
been improved upon several times over the years. It would indeed be
illegal for a car company to tie a car to their own gasoline.

It is part of the anti-trust monopoly laws.

Art
 
If your "Very much older" printers are pre-chip, you probably have more
than enough empties to refill, and I don't know if those older
cartridges are involved in this patent issue. Those older cartridges
are basically plastic boxes with sponge in them to hold the ink. I
can't imagine there are a lot of patents there.

Art
 
Back
Top