3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arthur Entlich
  • Start date Start date
Arthur said:
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.
Click to expand...

They would all shut down third party suppliers if they could.
Personally, I don't see where printers should be treated any differently
than automobiles. They both use consumables.
 
Next thing we will see is General Motors designing their cars so that they can
only
accept their brand of tires. On and on and on.

Sherwin
 
Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot and deserve to be taken to the cleaners. We have monopoly
laws, which should override these so-called legal ripoffs.

Sherwin
 
Oh ADeeDo duz nit mak cents

sherwindu wrote:

Next thing we will see is General Motors designing their cars so that they can only accept their brand of tires. On and on and on. Sherwin Arthur Entlich wrote:



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 DanG wrote:



"Arthur Entlich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:EGiWi.164916$Da.33959@pd7urf1no...



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



The article doesn't really specify what carts/tanks are affected, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
 
Michael said:
They would all shut down third party suppliers if they could.
Personally, I don't see where printers should be treated any
differently than automobiles. They both use consumables.
Click to expand...

So do we when we eat. Now do you eat third party food
 
measekite said:
Michael Johnson wrote:

So do we when we eat. Now do you eat third party food
Click to expand...
Sure he does. So do you, I expect. The first party involved with a human
being, which I'll loosely define as including you, Measekite, is the
manufacturer. That would be either the parents (you DID have parents,
didn't you?) or the deity of your choice, depending on your beliefs. The
second party is the current owner/user of the item in question. For you,
Measekite, that would BE you, Measekite - unless you live where slavery
is legal. I suppose it might also include your spouse, assuming somebody
is crazy enough to marry you.

So, if your food is produced by anybody but one of the above, it's
third-party food.

Caveat: I have been a producer and retailer of food products for 46
years, so I have a vested interest in promoting the purchase of
"third-party food."

TJ
 
TJ said:
Sure he does. So do you, I expect. The first party involved with a human
being, which I'll loosely define as including you, Measekite, is the
manufacturer. That would be either the parents (you DID have parents,
didn't you?) or the deity of your choice, depending on your beliefs. The
second party is the current owner/user of the item in question. For you,
Measekite, that would BE you, Measekite - unless you live where slavery
is legal. I suppose it might also include your spouse, assuming somebody
is crazy enough to marry you.

So, if your food is produced by anybody but one of the above, it's
third-party food.

Caveat: I have been a producer and retailer of food products for 46
years, so I have a vested interest in promoting the purchase of
"third-party food."
Click to expand...

How does one purchase OEM food verses third party food? Once again, he
has strolled off the reservation.
 
Michael Johnson said:
How does one purchase OEM food verses third party food? Once again, he
has strolled off the reservation.
Click to expand...

The only OEM food is that which you purchase directly from the farmer. That
is, as TJ says, unless your belief system says that a deity is responsible
for the food we eat, in which case the farmer was a middle man (or woman)
and it is not OEM. The farmer becomes a repackager.
 
Burt said:
The only OEM food is that which you purchase directly from the farmer. That
is, as TJ says, unless your belief system says that a deity is responsible
for the food we eat, in which case the farmer was a middle man (or woman)
and it is not OEM. The farmer becomes a repackager.
Click to expand...

I think measkatroll should be searching for an OEM human brain. Hell,
even a third party brain would be better than what he is using now.
 
Burt said:
The only OEM food is that which you purchase directly from the farmer. That
is, as TJ says, unless your belief system says that a deity is responsible
for the food we eat, in which case the farmer was a middle man (or woman)
and it is not OEM. The farmer becomes a repackager.
Click to expand...
Not quite, Burt. It's the OEM of the consumer that has to be identified,
not the OEM of the food. If you don't believe a deity is responsible for
both you and your food, the OEM of the one consuming the food would be
the parents of said consumer. So, the only way to get OEM food in that
case is to purchase it from the parents, who had to either grow it
themselves or contract with a farmer - with the contract strictly
controlling all phases of production, of course - and containing a
clause where the identity of the actual producer is withheld from the
consumer. That means that even if you purchase your food from the same
producer as your parents, you're purchasing it from a "fly-by-night
relabeler."

In MY case, I use a combination of OEM (my mother is living with me and
helps in our personal garden. My father died last year.), second-party
(I do most of the production work for the portion of the food I don't
buy), and third-party (I do make purchases in a supermarket) food. So
far, my mother hasn't so much as threatened to void my warranty.

TJ
 
TJ said:
Not quite, Burt. It's the OEM of the consumer that has to be identified,
not the OEM of the food. If you don't believe a deity is responsible for
both you and your food, the OEM of the one consuming the food would be the
parents of said consumer. So, the only way to get OEM food in that case is
to purchase it from the parents, who had to either grow it themselves or
contract with a farmer - with the contract strictly controlling all phases
of production, of course - and containing a clause where the identity of
the actual producer is withheld from the consumer. That means that even if
you purchase your food from the same producer as your parents, you're
purchasing it from a "fly-by-night relabeler."

In MY case, I use a combination of OEM (my mother is living with me and
helps in our personal garden. My father died last year.), second-party (I
do most of the production work for the portion of the food I don't buy),
and third-party (I do make purchases in a supermarket) food. So far, my
mother hasn't so much as threatened to void my warranty.

TJ
Click to expand...

But --- has it clogged your nozzles or have you faded!!!!
 
Burt said:
But --- has it clogged your nozzles or have you faded!!!!
Click to expand...

I have noticed some fading this past summer. Partially due to a
reduction in the consumption of the third-party component and a
corresponding increase in the second-party component, my waistline is
now over four inches (11 cm.) smaller than it was in April. While I'm
not in the habit of weighing myself regularly, I would estimate that
translates into 25-30 pounds (11-13.5 kg.) of weight loss. The other
part of the phenomenon is probably due to increased physical activity.
(That's WORK, Measekite.)

As for the nozzles, I must admit that they do seem flow freer on average
with the increased second-party food. Also, some of the OEM food that
was contract-produced resulted in more nozzle sluggishness than the
second-party food.

TJ
 
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!
Click to expand...

I don't think remanufacturing would be a patent violation, unless there is
patented technology preventing a spent cartridge being reused.
 
Gary Tait said:
I don't think remanufacturing would be a patent violation, unless there is
patented technology preventing a spent cartridge being reused.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly the issue here, Epson have patented a technology
(essentially a chip) that cannot be copied without infringing patent. If this
technology was applied to toner cartridges there would be some changes in the
remanufacturing industry. However it would be extremely difficult to apply that
technology to toner cartridges. As a matter of fact, several manufacturers
could do a lot more to make remanufacturing much more difficult if they wished.
I could easily redesign some toner cartridges to make them too costly to
remanufacture. The question is why don't they make them more difficult and I
think there are several reasons for this.
Ink cartridges are another matter; essentially, refilling them is just a matter
if putting more ink into the cartridge (yes I know there are complications but
most of the time that is true) so provided the ink does not infringe patents
the only way to protect their intellectual property is to use electronic means
to make succesful refilling or production of compatibles difficult.
Tony
MS MVP Printing/Imaging
 
TJ said:
I have noticed some fading this past summer. Partially due to a reduction
in the consumption of the third-party component and a corresponding
increase in the second-party component, my waistline is now over four
inches (11 cm.) smaller than it was in April. While I'm not in the habit
of weighing myself regularly, I would estimate that translates into 25-30
pounds (11-13.5 kg.) of weight loss. The other part of the phenomenon is
probably due to increased physical activity. (That's WORK, Measekite.)

As for the nozzles, I must admit that they do seem flow freer on average
with the increased second-party food. Also, some of the OEM food that was
contract-produced resulted in more nozzle sluggishness than the
second-party food.

TJ
Click to expand...

Just as we experience with inkjet printers, nozzle sluggishness usually
occurs with age rather than intake of non-oem products.
 
Tony said:
And that is exactly the issue here, Epson have patented a technology
(essentially a chip) that cannot be copied without infringing patent. If
this
technology was applied to toner cartridges there would be some changes in
the
remanufacturing industry. However it would be extremely difficult to apply
that
technology to toner cartridges. As a matter of fact, several manufacturers
could do a lot more to make remanufacturing much more difficult if they
wished.
I could easily redesign some toner cartridges to make them too costly to
remanufacture. The question is why don't they make them more difficult and
I
think there are several reasons for this.
Ink cartridges are another matter; essentially, refilling them is just a
matter
if putting more ink into the cartridge (yes I know there are complications
but
most of the time that is true) so provided the ink does not infringe
patents
the only way to protect their intellectual property is to use electronic
means
to make succesful refilling or production of compatibles difficult.
Tony
MS MVP Printing/Imaging
Click to expand...
I just received an email from MIS indicating that they will no longer be
selling Epson refillable or prefilled aftermarket carts. They did reiterate
that they have aftermarket ink and refill kits for the OEM carts for most
Epson printers.
 
Back
Top