Red alert! It's the great printer refill rip-off (Lexmark suit, FREEP THIS POLL)

ZDNet AnchorDesk ^ | Monday, February 3, 2003 | David Coursey

[-YYZ-]

I missed this the first time around. You said:

"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."

Unless I'm sadly mistaken, reverse engineering is not and was not ever illegal. In the case of software, reverse engineering it means making it work the same way from an external point of view. As long as they have not achieved this by directly copying the "code" contained on the chip, they have not broken a copyright.

Now, I don't know what's on those chips. For all I know, they just contain a few bytes of memory with a certain code in them.

[visualops]

The issue is presenting a competitively priced (both the printer and the cartridges)product. The problem with the aftermarket price jacks, is because there is no competition, you have no idea if you are paying fair market value, or even getting the best product current technology has to offer.
Not allowing knock-offs is ridiculous, and applying DMCA is really over the top, IMHO. That could be applied to innumerable items in the marketplace. The market is full of cheap knock-offs, and one always have the choice to buy name-brand or not. I know many many people who will buy the name brand just because of the perception it's better. I, for one, am sick and tired of lining someone else's pockets because they don't want to compete fairly.
I'll also add that Lexmark's cartridges have so little ink in them it's ridiculous.

[newgeezer]

If no one makes it, and you're convinced there's a market for it, start your own printer company.

Maybe you'll have wisdom when you're an oldgeezer.

What you term "wisdom" appears to be nothing more than a defeatist attitude.

[Hodar]

...if I use another manufacturer's toner, my warranty is voided.

But, you have the option of running another manufacturer's toner. The printer will not shut down by virtue of not having the correct ID chip. I think voiding the warrantee is a logical and defendable position. This provides incentive to keep the customer. However, intentionally stopping the CUSTOMER's printer from operating is a different issue.

[Hodar]

...if I use another manufacturer's toner, my warranty is voided.

But, you have the option of running another manufacturer's toner. The printer will not shut down by virtue of not having the correct ID chip. I think voiding the warrantee is a logical and defendable position. This provides incentive to keep the customer. However, intentionally stopping the CUSTOMER's printer from operating is a different issue.

[The Electrician]

I was not addressing the intellectual property issue in my post, I was addressing the critics of Lexmark who are crying for the government to step in where the government has no business stepping in.

But, clearly, property rights, intellectual or otherwise, are guaranteed by the Constitution, and it is a fundamental responsibility of government to protect those rights. Levelling the playing field by using the government to cut the legs out from under a manufacturer is not. So, it is entirely legitimate for Lexmark to seek the government's assistance in protecting their property rights. And it is not legitimate for the whiners to try and coerce Lexmark into marketing their printers in the manner that the whiners would choose, to Lexmark's detriment.

[Nick Danger]

Here's another company that is allowing its lawyers to set business policy with disastrous results. The mere appearance of this article on ZDnet, and again here on FR, has just cost Lexmark more business than this lawsuit is ever going to be worth.

It's not like Lexmark is the only one doing this. HP, Epson, and all the rest are doing exactly the same thing. The whole industry is based on giving away the razor to sell the blades. But to read this thread, you'd think Lexmark is alone in the world, guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Part of what's wrong here is that Congress needs to take this stuff out of the hands of the courts... just remove it from their jurisdiction. Get the lawyers and the judges away from these issues; all they do is screw things up. Same thing with the Congressmen... they passed the damned DMCA to begin with, and look what happens here... comes now a lawyer using a copyright law to facilitate what used to be called "restraint of trade." How will the judge rule? Who the Hell knows? And that's the problem. Every time the lawyers stick their noses into this stuff, they create more unintended consequences than they even knew existed.

[Nephi]

What you term "wisdom" appears to be nothing more than a defeatist attitude.

Demonstating your lack of wisdom and understanding of the free market once again?
The market is ink cartridges, not printers, as demonstated by the poster who buys new printers rather than cartridges. This market has been created artificially by the printer manufacture companies. The ink cartridge companies have discovered the arbitrage and are capitalizing on it. I have found a way around it, too - I refill my own.

Oh, and by the way, it isn't consumers crying to the nanny state, it's Lexmark.

[ThinkDifferent]

So, it is entirely legitimate for Lexmark to seek the government's assistance in protecting their property rights.

Well that's our fundamental disagreement; I don't believe Lexmark has any property rights in this matter because the printer is owned by the customer, not Lexmark. Regarding the IP claims, reverse engineering has always been considered legitimate, and rightly so.

[dcwusmc]

They HAVE. Lexmark does that very thing with most ALL its printers. Now I have to say that their printers are GOOD, as a rule, and have gotten better than the ones I used to have to repair... BUT their marketing types need to be tarred and feathered.

[newgeezer]

Demonstating your lack of wisdom and understanding of the free market once again?

There you go again. Anyone who doesn't see it your way, or fails to make sense of your vagaries, automatically lacks "wisdom".

I don't know who rattled your rusty cage today but, good grief. What a self-righteous, pompous, smart-@ss blowhard.

[newgeezer]

reverse engineering has always been considered legitimate, and rightly so.

Given your handle, .... Wasn't it Apple who, some years ago, litigated some poor saps into nonexistence, just because they sucessfully reverse-engineered the Mac ROM, and tried to market their own unauthorized Mac clones? (This predates the short-lived, authorized clones.)

[Hildy]

Sometimes the business model is necessary. You know when they say in the small print that the value of your FREE cell phone is $299? (or more). It's true. These things are incredibly expensive to make. They do make it on the phone charges. They wouldn'tbe able to be in business otherwise. HOWEVER, that being said. I would pay a little more for a printer if the cartridges were reasonable. Printer cartridge replacements are the biggest rip offs of the day.

[Nephi]

Is it my fault that you're in over your head?

[newgeezer]

I would pay a little more for a printer if the cartridges were reasonable. Printer cartridge replacements are the biggest rip offs of the day.

Whoa, be careful. If word gets out that enough of us feel that way, some fearless entrepreneur might get wind of it and actually try to compete with the established brands by selling his printers with a plan of allowing others access to his consumables market. :-)

Sadly, some folks don't have the term "proprietary" in their vocabulary. They refuse to give the Lexmarks of this world a chance to market themselves out of business.

[LTCJ]

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.

Care to share the name? I'd dearly love to give my business to someone else.

And for what it's worth - beware of those brand name double pack cartridges at lower prices unless you do a lot of printing. Those things have an expiration date which might come before you're ready to pop the second pack. I found out the hard way that the ink does "expire".

[Mark]

I've heard good things about this company. I don't print a lot myself- still on original cartridges.
http://www.klassicspecialties.com/ink.shtml

[newgeezer]

Is it my fault that you're in over your head?

When you judge someone to be in over his head, do you often respond by holding him under?

[ThinkDifferent]

Wasn't it Apple who, some years ago, litigated some poor saps into nonexistence, just because they sucessfully reverse-engineered the Mac ROM

I'm not familiar with that, but if it did happen then Apple was probably wrong.

[widgysoft]

I don't buy cartridges anymore. I just buy a new printer when my cartridges run out. It's cheaper....

I'm actually serious....


ROFLMAO. because its true!