The warranty is very carefully crafted.
"This limited warranty covers all defects encountered in normal use of
the Product and does not apply in the following cases:
(b) Use of parts or supplies (other than those sold by Canon USA) that
cause damage to the Product or cause abnormally frequent service calls
or service problems."
The operative words here are: "that cause damage or cause abnormally
frequent service calls or service problems"
If indeed an ink formulation, and rightfully so, causes those things
mentioned above, then Canon will not warrant repairs that can be
attributed to there use. They are legally in their right to do so.
HOWEVER, and this is a big one (that's why it's big... in CAPS ;-))
there is something called the Sherman Anti Trust Act in the US. It is a
law that basically made it illegal to "tie" product sales together of
differing goods. It was principally done to stop companies from
requiring the use of their own branded consumables to get a certain
pricing or to keep a warranty valid.
Most countries have similar acts.
The auto industry was notorious for requiring you use their parts (spark
plug cables, air, oil, fuel filters, etc.) when having the car serviced,
or the warranty would be voided. Indirectly, this allowed for price
control and was considered anti competition, because it wouldn't allow
for third party companies to produce competitively priced spare parts
and consumables, basically creating a monopolistic condition.
What the law did was make it illegal to require certain brands of goods
be used to protect a warranty or pricing structure. To protect
themselves from being left with the liability of a warranty when someone
used very inferior consumables and spares which might create down-line
damage, some industries have developed standards associations, which
test parts to make sure they meet minimal standards. In the auto
industry, standards exist for gasoline, oil, and many other fluids and
lubricants, as well as certain parts through ANSI, UL, CSA, DOT, ISO,
IEEE and other groups which are either government or independently run
and financed through fees charged to each member.
Unfortunately, inkjet printer ink doesn't have a standards group yet. As
a result, the manufacturers try to walk a fine line between trying to
protect the liability they can have to sub-standard product being used
and damaging things like heads to which they may be held responsible for
repairing or replacing, and not violating trust acts of various countries.
Where things get sneaky, and in my opinion, skirt the law, are when
manufacturers integrate technologies under the guise of some function
when they have obvious other uses which thwart the trust acts.
For instance, if you were to ask Epson why their cartridges use a chip
to keep track of approximate ink remaining, they will probably tell you
it is because they instituted a new cartridge that allows for it to be
removed and replaced at a later date. This feature allows you to start
printing unattended with a set of brand new cartridges, and yet, at a
later time return to the ones that only had 20% of their ink left, when
you are doing a smaller job. In order to do this, the cartridges,
rather than the printer or software in the computer needed to travel
with the ink remainder information, so a chip was installed that could
be read when the cartridges was reinstalled in the printer to tell it
about how much ink was in that specific cartridge. And, the reason this
was so critical, is because Epson printers otherwise have difficulty
reestablishing ink flow if the cartridge runs out of ink, and either
dried the head passages or gets an air lock. Epson will probably also
tell you that the reason their newest ink cartridges are made so
difficult to refill isn't to prevent you from using someone elses ink,
no, but because the newer inks need to be protected from oxidation, so
the 18 or so chambers in the cartridge, air/liquid exchange membrane,
assorted pressure and one way valves, are all designed to minimize the
air/ink surface area.
So, which is true? I'll leave you to decide. Maybe both... but these
are the arguments that may need to be answered in the courts. Inkjet
companies use a variety of methods to "protect" their printers and their
revenues, and some challenges have been successful (usually by third
party companies), sometimes, having to protect their own right to
manufacture spare parts, win in court and sometimes lose.
So, might Canon refuse to fix your printer is you used a 3rd party ink?
If the ink has nothing to do with the service failure (say the motor
for the paper transport), they are violating the law in most cases.
However, if they have been able to prove that 3rd party inks ruin their
print heads, they may indeed have a valid argument. Will that stake
their claim as a result? That depends. Proving the damage was caused
by a 3rd party product may be difficult or costly. Client might be
lost, even if the damage claim is true. It may encourage court action,
which the manufacturer may not wish to start.
From what I have seen in the industry, it is rare the manufacturer will
dig in its heels and refuse a warranty period repair unless there is
obvious damage due to use of a consumable. For instance if they found
indications you were printing on carpet squares, they may just decide to
send you your printer back with a bill after they repaired it.
Art
