Skip to comments.
Red alert! It's the great printer refill rip-off (Lexmark suit, FREEP THIS POLL)
ZDNet AnchorDesk ^
| Monday, February 3, 2003
| David Coursey
Posted on 02/03/2003 8:33:38 AM PST by newgeezer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-104 next last
I HIGHLY recommend voting YES on the poll (currently 3% yes, 97% no). I figure, if Lexmark thinks it can get away with preventing others from mfg. compatible printer supplies, let 'em try. Then, consumers can decide whether that's okay by voting with their dollars. Sheesh.
"I DON'T LIKE this business model. For one thing, I think it distorts the marketplace." BS! What "distorts" the marketplace is the growing pile of nanny government regulations that prevent consumers from making their own informed decisions. Some of us DO LIKE to buy printers cheaply (or free after rebate) with little or no intent of ever buying any of their proprietary, overpriced ink cartridges. ;-)
1
posted on
02/03/2003 8:33:39 AM PST
by
newgeezer
To: *FREEP!
2
posted on
02/03/2003 8:37:42 AM PST
by
newgeezer
(A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
To: newgeezer
I respectfully disagree. My issue is not with the cost of the original equipment, but the aspect of buying the 'front end' cheap (ie. making a committment) then being held hostage for future consumables. If this is now 'status quo', whats to stop other companies from adopting similar models?
For example, you buy XYZ car. Now you must refill only at XYZ's gas station, or your car won't start. When you car fills with gasoline, XYZ updates your system to work. Failure to update the chip on your car prevents the engine from starting. There's nothing 'magical' about the consumable, except that you have made an investment in the 'front end'; now must pay whatever price the manufacturer wishes (ie. extortion) to continue using the equipment you used.
The only way to combat this, is to fill our landfills with fresh purchases of printers, tossing the old printer every time the ink runs dry. In most cases, the printer costs just a few dollars more than the ink. This is simply a battle of attrition. I would prefer an 'Open Market' solution. Who ever makes the best 'ink' at the best 'price' wins.
3
posted on
02/03/2003 8:43:15 AM PST
by
Hodar
To: newgeezer
Then there's the environmental angle. The European Union has already blocked the use of chips in printer cartridges, claiming that their use increases the number of such cartridges that end up in landfills. The chips, in other words, are an environmental threat. The environment, as usual, is the edge of the wedge for the nanny state.
4
posted on
02/03/2003 8:43:26 AM PST
by
gridlock
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue)
To: newgeezer
This is not a new issue.
Automobile manufacturers tried this many years ago by claiming the right to sell replacement parts, tires, etc.
They lost and Lexmark will lose. It is a violation of anitrust laws and is "restraint of trade".
It does not have to be a "Monopoly" to be "restraint of trade".
5
posted on
02/03/2003 8:43:50 AM PST
by
Dan(9698)
To: Hodar
The only way to combat this, is to fill our landfills with fresh purchases of printers, tossing the old printer every time the ink runs dry. Works for me! If that's the cheapest way to arrange ink in specific patterns on paper, that's the way to do it!
6
posted on
02/03/2003 8:45:28 AM PST
by
gridlock
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue)
To: Hodar
you buy XYZ carThat was your first mistake, and it was easily avoidable.
7
posted on
02/03/2003 8:45:54 AM PST
by
newgeezer
(A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
To: newgeezer
But isn't Lexmark alleging an infringement of the DMCA, and would a "Yes" vote not be a vote in favor of the DMCA?
To: newgeezer
What "distorts" the marketplace is the growing pile of nanny government regulations that prevent consumers from making their own informed decisions.
The problem is that it's a nanny government regulation that started this fight in the first place! The DMCA was drafted as a protectionist measure for the movie and record industries, but it was so badly written that it can be applied to nearly anything electronic...it is the ultimate "nanny state" measure to appease a few high dollar constituents.
So the question is, should Lexmark be allowed to abuse a bad law to stave off its competition? I say no...in a FREE marketplace, Lexmark should have to compete for its business AND those voting dollars you mentioned. As it is, they are hiding behind the governments skirts and crying foul because someone dared to infringe on their turf.
To put this into another (common) analogy: What if the car companies each developed their own brands of oil, charged $25 a quart for it, and then placed sensors to shut the engine down if you tried to use anything other than their brand in their engine? And if they did the same with $10 a gallon gas? There is no difference here.
9
posted on
02/03/2003 8:47:49 AM PST
by
Arthalion
To: newgeezer
HEADS UP!!! Vote NO!!!
Lexmark ALSO has some OTHER type of chip in it that will cause your cartridges to STOP working after xxx amount of print jobs or xxxx amount of time. ( I have TWO half full cartridges now, black and color. And at $32-$36 each, they will hit the burn pile as I go to buy ANOTHER brand printer.)
Any suggestions?
To: newgeezer
It distorts the free market when a company attempt to force you to buy their product at an artificially inflated price when an acceptable and cheaper alternative is available.
11
posted on
02/03/2003 8:49:28 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
To: newgeezer
>>>you buy XYZ car
>>>That was your first mistake, and it was easily avoidable.
Lexmark does not advise that you must buy replacement parts from only them before you buy their printer.
That is another violation of anti-trust law.
It is called a "tying arrangement" ---Where you must buy something you do not want in order to get something you do want.
To: newgeezer
If I buy a printer and do not rent or lease it. It is mine. I should be able to put whatever type of fluid I wish into it.
13
posted on
02/03/2003 8:51:52 AM PST
by
toast
To: mommadooo3
Good luck! HP is just as bad. The printer we now have starts sending out low ink readings when the cartridge is still half full. For someone who is worried about running out, they will change the cartridge and throw the 'old' one out. It's a racket.
PS I recently bought an 'off brand' cartridge to replace our black ink. So far, so good and it was 33% cheaper than HP. They also state on the package that using it would not invalidate your warranty.
To: newgeezer
Substitute "Microsoft" for "Lexmark" and "software" for "ink" and see what you get. Amazing how some one can be against Microsoft (i.e. free market) but be against Lexmark when the situations are very analagous.
15
posted on
02/03/2003 8:56:46 AM PST
by
doc30
To: newgeezer
Red alert! Cyan, Magenta, and Black not endangered at this time.
16
posted on
02/03/2003 8:57:34 AM PST
by
steve-b
To: Dan(9698)
I got my printer for free from Lexmark, so I really don't have much standing to complain.
Lexmark cartridges cost about the same as other cartridges at Office Depot, so I dosn't look like the are gouging too bad.
But I print fairly infrequently, so I usually wind up upgrading the computer, and getting a new Lexmark printer, before I buy cartridges. If I were the type of person who did a lot of printing, I would definitely do some life-cycle cost analysis before I decided on an printing option.
Strike that, I do buy one cartridge, which replaces the Lexmark three-color with a large tank black cartridge. But that's enough to hold me for a couple/three years.
But the rational economic choice for me is to go with the Lexmark unit and buy the one (black) cartridge. Why should I complain about that?
17
posted on
02/03/2003 8:58:03 AM PST
by
gridlock
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue)
To: Blood of Tyrants
"It distorts the free market when a company attempt to force you to buy their product at an artificially inflated price when an acceptable and cheaper alternative is available." Pardon me, but no one attempted to "force" me to buy a Lexmark printer. When I bought a printer, I took 20 minutes and checked the prices and availability for cartridges for it before buying it and made my decision accordingly. Caveat Emptor.
To: mommadooo3
>>>Any suggestions?
Call the Federal Trade Commission and tell them exactly what you wrote here and file a complaint because you cannot use what you bought.
Let the Feds fight this fight. It is Restraint of Trade.
It is also fraud to sell something that is only partially useable.
They can only act if they have complaints of specific acts and evidence to support the complaint. Keep the cartriges so you can demonstrate what you claim.
To: Still Thinking
I answered the poll question.
YES, Lexmark should be able to prevent other companies from offering compatible printer cartridges (if it thinks it can get away with it).
I don't think there's any question that reverse engineering firmware for profit is illegal.
Let the consumer inform himself, and decide which printer is best for him. As for me, I'm happy for the opportunity to buy a new Lexmark printer complete with black and color cartridges for less than the price of the replacement cartridges (sometimes free after rebate).
It's no different than if a manufacturer introduces a new gun that uses proprietary bullets. The buyer need only look at the price of bullets before he buys the gun. If he doesn't like that "business model," he's free to buy a competitor's gun that uses standard bullets. Freedom. What a concept!
20
posted on
02/03/2003 9:02:21 AM PST
by
newgeezer
(A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-104 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson