If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.
Which is the ****, and which is the Shinola?
Richard |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:25:32 -0500, Michael Johnson wrote
in m: Burt wrote: "TJ" wrote in message .. . Burt wrote: "Michael Johnson" wrote in message ... TJ wrote: measekite wrote: Michael Johnson wrote: They would all shut down third party suppliers if they could. Personally, I don't see where printers should be treated any differently than automobiles. They both use consumables. So do we when we eat. Now do you eat third party food Sure he does. So do you, I expect. The first party involved with a human being, which I'll loosely define as including you, Measekite, is the manufacturer. That would be either the parents (you DID have parents, didn't you?) or the deity of your choice, depending on your beliefs. The second party is the current owner/user of the item in question. For you, Measekite, that would BE you, Measekite - unless you live where slavery is legal. I suppose it might also include your spouse, assuming somebody is crazy enough to marry you. So, if your food is produced by anybody but one of the above, it's third-party food. Caveat: I have been a producer and retailer of food products for 46 years, so I have a vested interest in promoting the purchase of "third-party food." How does one purchase OEM food verses third party food? Once again, he has strolled off the reservation. The only OEM food is that which you purchase directly from the farmer. That is, as TJ says, unless your belief system says that a deity is responsible for the food we eat, in which case the farmer was a middle man (or woman) and it is not OEM. The farmer becomes a repackager. Not quite, Burt. It's the OEM of the consumer that has to be identified, not the OEM of the food. If you don't believe a deity is responsible for both you and your food, the OEM of the one consuming the food would be the parents of said consumer. So, the only way to get OEM food in that case is to purchase it from the parents, who had to either grow it themselves or contract with a farmer - with the contract strictly controlling all phases of production, of course - and containing a clause where the identity of the actual producer is withheld from the consumer. That means that even if you purchase your food from the same producer as your parents, you're purchasing it from a "fly-by-night relabeler." In MY case, I use a combination of OEM (my mother is living with me and helps in our personal garden. My father died last year.), second-party (I do most of the production work for the portion of the food I don't buy), and third-party (I do make purchases in a supermarket) food. So far, my mother hasn't so much as threatened to void my warranty. TJ But --- has it clogged your nozzles or have you faded!!!! If the nozzle is clogged there is always laxatives. Or an oversize re-bore.... -- Nicolaas. .... I will die on my feet before I will live on my knees! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:18:30 -0800, Richard Steinfeld
wrote in : Which is the ****, and which is the Shinola? Richard Pay money, take choice. -- Nicolaas. .... I will die on my feet before I will live on my knees! |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.
Burt wrote:
"TJ" wrote in message Not quite, Burt. It's the OEM of the consumer that has to be identified, not the OEM of the food. If you don't believe a deity is responsible for both you and your food, the OEM of the one consuming the food would be the parents of said consumer. So, the only way to get OEM food in that case is to purchase it from the parents, who had to either grow it themselves or contract with a farmer - with the contract strictly controlling all phases of production, of course - and containing a clause where the identity of the actual producer is withheld from the consumer. That means that even if you purchase your food from the same producer as your parents, you're purchasing it from a "fly-by-night relabeler." In MY case, I use a combination of OEM (my mother is living with me and helps in our personal garden. My father died last year.), second-party (I do most of the production work for the portion of the food I don't buy), and third-party (I do make purchases in a supermarket) food. So far, my mother hasn't so much as threatened to void my warranty. TJ But --- has it clogged your nozzles or have you faded!!!! I have noticed some fading this past summer. Partially due to a reduction in the consumption of the third-party component and a corresponding increase in the second-party component, my waistline is now over four inches (11 cm.) smaller than it was in April. While I'm not in the habit of weighing myself regularly, I would estimate that translates into 25-30 pounds (11-13.5 kg.) of weight loss. The other part of the phenomenon is probably due to increased physical activity. (That's WORK, Measekite.) As for the nozzles, I must admit that they do seem flow freer on average with the increased second-party food. Also, some of the OEM food that was contract-produced resulted in more nozzle sluggishness than the second-party food. TJ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.
Brian wrote in
: Isn't it funny that nobody goes after the people who manufacturer or re-manufacturer toner cartridges ? I see there's already color toner cartridges for allot of the new color laser printers on the market..... No there's allot of patent infringement there to complain about! I don't think remanufacturing would be a patent violation, unless there is patented technology preventing a spent cartridge being reused. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.
Gary Tait wrote:
Brian wrote in : Isn't it funny that nobody goes after the people who manufacturer or re-manufacturer toner cartridges ? I see there's already color toner cartridges for allot of the new color laser printers on the market..... No there's allot of patent infringement there to complain about! I don't think remanufacturing would be a patent violation, unless there is patented technology preventing a spent cartridge being reused. And that is exactly the issue here, Epson have patented a technology (essentially a chip) that cannot be copied without infringing patent. If this technology was applied to toner cartridges there would be some changes in the remanufacturing industry. However it would be extremely difficult to apply that technology to toner cartridges. As a matter of fact, several manufacturers could do a lot more to make remanufacturing much more difficult if they wished. I could easily redesign some toner cartridges to make them too costly to remanufacture. The question is why don't they make them more difficult and I think there are several reasons for this. Ink cartridges are another matter; essentially, refilling them is just a matter if putting more ink into the cartridge (yes I know there are complications but most of the time that is true) so provided the ink does not infringe patents the only way to protect their intellectual property is to use electronic means to make succesful refilling or production of compatibles difficult. Tony MS MVP Printing/Imaging |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.
"TJ" wrote in message .. . Burt wrote: "TJ" wrote in message Not quite, Burt. It's the OEM of the consumer that has to be identified, not the OEM of the food. If you don't believe a deity is responsible for both you and your food, the OEM of the one consuming the food would be the parents of said consumer. So, the only way to get OEM food in that case is to purchase it from the parents, who had to either grow it themselves or contract with a farmer - with the contract strictly controlling all phases of production, of course - and containing a clause where the identity of the actual producer is withheld from the consumer. That means that even if you purchase your food from the same producer as your parents, you're purchasing it from a "fly-by-night relabeler." In MY case, I use a combination of OEM (my mother is living with me and helps in our personal garden. My father died last year.), second-party (I do most of the production work for the portion of the food I don't buy), and third-party (I do make purchases in a supermarket) food. So far, my mother hasn't so much as threatened to void my warranty. TJ But --- has it clogged your nozzles or have you faded!!!! I have noticed some fading this past summer. Partially due to a reduction in the consumption of the third-party component and a corresponding increase in the second-party component, my waistline is now over four inches (11 cm.) smaller than it was in April. While I'm not in the habit of weighing myself regularly, I would estimate that translates into 25-30 pounds (11-13.5 kg.) of weight loss. The other part of the phenomenon is probably due to increased physical activity. (That's WORK, Measekite.) As for the nozzles, I must admit that they do seem flow freer on average with the increased second-party food. Also, some of the OEM food that was contract-produced resulted in more nozzle sluggishness than the second-party food. TJ Just as we experience with inkjet printers, nozzle sluggishness usually occurs with age rather than intake of non-oem products. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.
"Tony" wrote in message news Gary Tait wrote: Brian wrote in m: Isn't it funny that nobody goes after the people who manufacturer or re-manufacturer toner cartridges ? I see there's already color toner cartridges for allot of the new color laser printers on the market..... No there's allot of patent infringement there to complain about! I don't think remanufacturing would be a patent violation, unless there is patented technology preventing a spent cartridge being reused. And that is exactly the issue here, Epson have patented a technology (essentially a chip) that cannot be copied without infringing patent. If this technology was applied to toner cartridges there would be some changes in the remanufacturing industry. However it would be extremely difficult to apply that technology to toner cartridges. As a matter of fact, several manufacturers could do a lot more to make remanufacturing much more difficult if they wished. I could easily redesign some toner cartridges to make them too costly to remanufacture. The question is why don't they make them more difficult and I think there are several reasons for this. Ink cartridges are another matter; essentially, refilling them is just a matter if putting more ink into the cartridge (yes I know there are complications but most of the time that is true) so provided the ink does not infringe patents the only way to protect their intellectual property is to use electronic means to make succesful refilling or production of compatibles difficult. Tony MS MVP Printing/Imaging I just received an email from MIS indicating that they will no longer be selling Epson refillable or prefilled aftermarket carts. They did reiterate that they have aftermarket ink and refill kits for the OEM carts for most Epson printers. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.
"Burt" wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message news Gary Tait wrote: Brian wrote in : Isn't it funny that nobody goes after the people who manufacturer or re-manufacturer toner cartridges ? I see there's already color toner cartridges for allot of the new color laser printers on the market..... No there's allot of patent infringement there to complain about! I don't think remanufacturing would be a patent violation, unless there is patented technology preventing a spent cartridge being reused. And that is exactly the issue here, Epson have patented a technology (essentially a chip) that cannot be copied without infringing patent. If this technology was applied to toner cartridges there would be some changes in the remanufacturing industry. However it would be extremely difficult to apply that technology to toner cartridges. As a matter of fact, several manufacturers could do a lot more to make remanufacturing much more difficult if they wished. I could easily redesign some toner cartridges to make them too costly to remanufacture. The question is why don't they make them more difficult and I think there are several reasons for this. Ink cartridges are another matter; essentially, refilling them is just a matter if putting more ink into the cartridge (yes I know there are complications but most of the time that is true) so provided the ink does not infringe patents the only way to protect their intellectual property is to use electronic means to make succesful refilling or production of compatibles difficult. Tony MS MVP Printing/Imaging I just received an email from MIS indicating that they will no longer be selling Epson refillable or prefilled aftermarket carts. They did reiterate that they have aftermarket ink and refill kits for the OEM carts for most Epson printers. Yes Burt. This appears to be the case worldwide except of course in a few countries that do not enforce patent rights. There does not appear to be any issue with inks infringing patents, just the chips. Tony |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EPSON - any 3rd party drivers for 3rd party inks? | [email protected] | Printers | 3 | December 19th 05 05:18 PM |
Online store for Printer Ink Cartridge,Laser Toner,Solid Ink,Refill Kits,Ribbon Cartridge | kathy tian | Printers | 5 | November 11th 05 02:29 AM |
3rd party cartridge vendors Epson C84 | Jim McColl | Printers | 3 | March 17th 05 03:57 PM |
3rd party Ink | Don Davis | Printers | 2 | July 25th 04 06:01 PM |
Third Party RAM | Ric | Compaq Servers | 4 | June 3rd 04 10:22 AM |