Who will have to prove that peanut butter is not suited as ink?
Maybe for Canon it's as obvious that another 3rd party ink does not
satisfy Canons specs (e.g. pigment size, addons for cleaning, vapor
temperature for bubbles, remains, fungizids, ...). Since they do not lay
open those specs (I don't see any need for them), another manufacturer
hardly can ensure that his product is ok.
Reference to canon and issues with fungus and bacteria.
http://www.canon.com./technology/interview/chroma/chroma_p1.html
it's mostly marketing but has some useful info.... esp on how they had
to deal with anti fungizids and anti-bactial elements that would result
in clogging.
I know in cases of slander and liable... the plaintif only need prove
what someone said caused damage... and it's up to the defendent to
prove the statements were in fact true. I'm not a lawyer but this is
my basic understanding of civil law. I could be wrong.
It's my belief that the mfg for example would have to prove the
alternative medium, i.e. the ink, caused the damage to deny warranty
service. I get this also with cases of cars... most recently I can
think of is Kia denying warranty service because of an aftermarket
radio... not able to prove that a radio could possibly cause damage to
power stering or some such.
The peanutbutter argument... easy enough to prove... you could put
peanut butter in a printer and odds are it won't print. Odds are even
if it did flow into the head, it would very likely (I've never tried
this) gum up the head. That can easily be proven. But third party
ink, esp that stuff actually designed for a specific printhead.. that
would be more difficult. Easy if as you say it was the fungus, or
alge, or bacteria. For the most part, esp from my limited experence
with 3rd party ink... it works... pretty well and for a good long time.
I infact have two printers one running on OEM and one running on 3rd
party. If talking canon the offical lifespan of the printhead is there
and abouts of 10 cartridge changes, a number I sorta extrated from the
service manual data which I can provide that info upon request. I
could if I so desired... setup two identical printers one on what I use
vs the OEM... and test to see if both the OEM and thirdparty stuff will
print to the offical designated life expectancy of the head. I've not
actually done this, my printing isn't so massive.. but odds are based
on what i've seen from others... 10 cartridge changes is possible with
non-oem.
Alge, fungus, bacteria is typicaly only an issue for external
inktanks... esp alge. You have your large volume of ink exposed to
light having out in an enviroment where the chemicals that prevent
growth are more likely to evaperate.
To put in more simple terms... as I can be a tad wordy... it's my
belief that the consumer only need prove warranty service was denied...
and it's up to the mfg to prove damage was caused by the product they
bought... esp since there is law that states use of a consumable (like
oil in a car) can be bought from anyone. I'm not a lawyer but it would
make sense.
But... should the OEM start denying warranties... assuming America...
this falls under the juristion of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).
With enough complaints... they will take the case on them selves, and
since there is Federal Law on the subject... they have the authority to
act. This is some bad mojo as Matel found out in the early 1980s when
they advertised a keyboard for their game machine but failed to deliver
due to design problems... they got their asses fined heavily for every
day they didn't honor purchace requests. I can hunt that info up if
your interested, i'm lazy at the moment. I'm sure othe respective
countries have similar provisions.. I just don't know the agencies off
the top of my head nor could I quote law on the subject.
That i'm not aware of any case? I've simply never heard of one... not
saying there isn't one... if there has i've never heard of it. I have
heard of warranty claims being denied before... but no court cases.
Yes, thanks. I don't believe yet that Canon would loose here, but you'll
never know.
No worries, i'd rather deal with someone who disagrees respectively
than a person who takes my opinions as fact on faith.
But the way I see it is this. Proof the third party ink caused the
damage would require much in the way of time bother and effort, esp
since printers have a limited lifespan to begin with. This is assuming
they take the time to test the ink residue in the first place. Some
universal inks you can spot with ease, the way it beads on plastic for
example, the size of the beads, even if it's mixed in a diaper. Color
is another dead giveaway, any flatbed scanner worth it's salt can spot
the differences between inks made by different people. Matched ink...
as in a close compatable would be harder as it's design to behave in a
similar way. They would have to evaluate the chemistry and actually
verify the ink caused the damage and this damage wouldn't happen using
the offical OEM product. And while you may not agree the OEM would
lose such a case... you gotta admit all of this... chemical analisis
and such would likely not be worth it for a $60 part on the consumer
level. Epson... well more like a $200 part. Not sure on HP.
