Pending SCOTUS decision... Who really owns your printer cartridge?

[Charles R]

This came up in my bookface feed...

http://gizmodo.com/supreme-court-pr...source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

I do remember hearing it was in the courts, but i didn't remember it was going to the big one. As the article points out, this could be as big, or even bigger, than the issues brought up in the John Deere situation.

The fundamental question ends up being, "who really owns what you've bought?"

 

[Shaggy]

At what point is there going to be pushback from the consumer public from this corporate greed? Stuff like this makes me angry....

 

[bojangle]

I will go out of my way to support companies that don't pull this crap...and vice versa.

Hopefully SCOTUS rules in favor of consumers and against these over reaches in patent law.

 

[Bronto]

As a consumer can appreciate OEM and third party parts. Don't like the forcing consumers after purchasing a product must purchase OEM parts. Its wrought of monopolistic tendencies.

 

[mototireguy]

My Aprilia came with this Agip decal.

Does this mean I can only use official Agip brand fuel?

 

[jt2]

At what point is there going to be pushback from the consumer public from this corporate greed? Stuff like this makes me angry....

Just to be clear, I think that DRM on a piece of hardware is horseshit.

That being said, though tempting to write it off as "corporate greed", it really isn't that simple.

Inkjet printers evolved years ago to the Gillette Razor model of sales - sell the initial product at a loss, and make money back on the consumables.

That $49 printer is being sold at a loss. Likewise the Amazon Kindle and dozens of other products.

Before you get too angry at Lexmark, consider that the consumer made this decision by buying the cheap printers without regard to consumables cost.

 

[bikeama]

My Aprilia came with this Agip decal.

Does this mean I can only use official Agip brand fuel?

Ducati goes farther "Use only Shell Advance Motorcycle oil"

I purchased oil and filter when I purchased my Multistrada to do the first 600 mile oil change. Dealer said they should do it to keep the warranty up. I told them CA law covers that. Then the Service Manager said Ducati will use the date on my receipt for the oil and filter as the date the oil was changed. WTF I told the Service Manager thank you I will document with a dated photo when I change my oil and record all other items I check that are on the Ducati service list. The only item I will have Ducati do is the valve adjustment. Just going to keep looking at the oil change light until them. :mad

 

[FXCLM5]

Bro their are lotsa lifehacks for printer cartridges.

Most of them tou can reuse 2-3x after it says empty

 

[rsrider]

Lexmark has been going at this for decades, and if the SCOTUS rule in their favor (and it will be the conservatives that would) they have no business sitting on the bench. This is about patent exhaustion and will throw the entire manufacturing world into chaos if Lexmark wins. And will kill used and secondary markets like ebay and Craigslist. It's the same tired BS of people trying to apply new rules to new technology that circumvents well established precedent on owner ship rights.

 

[nbean16]

Lexmark has been going at this for decades, and if the SCOTUS rule in their favor (and it will be the conservatives that would) they have no business sitting on the bench. This is about patent exhaustion and will throw the entire manufacturing world into chaos if Lexmark wins. And will kill used and secondary markets like ebay and Craigslist. It's the same tired BS of people trying to apply new rules to new technology that circumvents well established precedent on owner ship rights.

Why would it be the conservatives? How did you conclude this? And no law is going to kill ebay and craigslist. It would be a shitty ruling, but no the manufacturing world wont be thrown into chaos :laughing

 

[Reli]

Just to be clear, I think that DRM on a piece of hardware is horseshit.

That being said, though tempting to write it off as "corporate greed", it really isn't that simple.

Inkjet printers evolved years ago to the Gillette Razor model of sales - sell the initial product at a loss, and make money back on the consumables.

That $49 printer is being sold at a loss. Likewise the Amazon Kindle and dozens of other products.

Before you get too angry at Lexmark, consider that the consumer made this decision by buying the cheap printers without regard to consumables cost.

All true, but nobody forced them to lower prices to that level

Were printers selling for a loss back in the 80's and 90's when printers were still considered a luxury? Doubt it.

 

[teg916]

It is amazing that this type of stuff even makes it to the supreme court. Next thing you know corporations will be telling you what you can do with your poo after they sell you an apple.

Selling printers at a loss so they can make it back on ink? sounds like a bad business strategy. Some CEO is firing up his legal team instead of realizing this was a mistake.

 

[corndog67]

Selling printers at a loss so they can make it back on ink? sounds like a bad business strategy. Some CEO is firing up his legal team instead of realizing this was a mistake.

I had 3 perfectly good printers in my garage because it was cheaper to buy a new one $20something dollars on sale, vs $45 for a new cartridge.

 

[FXCLM5]

I had 3 perfectly good printers in my garage because it was cheaper to buy a new one $20something dollars on sale, vs $45 for a new cartridge.

google life hack ink cartridges, you can thank me later

 

[jt2]

Selling printers at a loss so they can make it back on ink? sounds like a bad business strategy.

:laughing Actually, it is a long-standing axiom.

Give 'em the razor handle and sell them the blades
Sell the Kindle at a loss and make bank on selling the E-books.
Game consoles sold at a loss, revenue made on royalties.

In my own experience network gear is frequently sold at a huge discount when maintenance contract commitments are bundled in.

It is a very effective and proven strategy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_model

I had 3 perfectly good printers in my garage because it was cheaper to buy a new one $20something dollars on sale, vs $45 for a new cartridge.

They've gotten wise to this - most inkjets now come with "starter" cartridges.

 

[Alan_Hepburn]

Sell the Kindle at a loss and make bank on selling the E-books.

Unless you sell the kindle to my wife, who maintains a list of scores of websites that offer FREE E-books! She's had several Nooks/Kindles over the years and has yet to pay for a book! :rofl

 

[Reli]

"Starter cartridges", lol.......yeah that are only like what, a third or a quarter of a normal cartridge?

BTW wasnt it HP that was found guilty of making cartridges that wouldn't drain all the way?

 

[Climber]

Before you get too angry at Lexmark, consider that the consumer made this decision by buying the cheap printers without regard to consumables cost.

No, that's on the printer makers for making that decision. The consumers didn't make the decision for the printer makers to sell it so cheap.

It's up to the manufacturers to keep the price of the product where they make a reasonable profit and the consumers don't feel the need to go else where for refills because the manufacturer is charging too much.

Trying to twist around patent law to increase profits is a chicken shit way of doing business.

 

[teg916]

:laughing Actually, it is a long-standing axiom.

Give 'em the razor handle and sell them the blades
Sell the Kindle at a loss and make bank on selling the E-books.
Game consoles sold at a loss, revenue made on royalties.

In my own experience network gear is frequently sold at a huge discount when maintenance contract commitments are bundled in.

It is a very effective and proven strategy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_model




They've gotten wise to this - most inkjets now come with "starter" cartridges.

I'm sure many times it is a successful strategy. Obviously it has not been as successful as they would like if they are trying to get the supreme court to restrict what consumers are allowed to do with their belingings.

 

[jt2]

Were printers selling for a loss back in the 80's and 90's when printers were still considered a luxury? Doubt it.

Nope. Dot Matrix printers didn't use ink cartridges. :laughing