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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Epson wins litigation - aftermarket carts already in short supply
Today my wholesale supplier of aftermarket inkjet cartridges for my
Epson 760, 860 and 1160 printers told me that they are out of carts for these printers and won't have a source of supply available until some time in October. It seems that quite a number of aftermarket cart manufacturers settled Epson's litigation and agreed to bow out of the business. See http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...facturers.html for more information. Don't ask who the suppler is, they only sell to resellers, not to end users. Please don't reply back to me personally, I don't hae the time to get involved in lengthy interchange acout this issue, but perhaps it's time for the thousands of us who have been successfully using aftermarket carts for years to tell Epson just what we think of their litigation. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Epson wins litigation - aftermarket carts already in short supply
anonymous wrote: Today my wholesale supplier of aftermarket inkjet cartridges for my Epson 760, 860 and 1160 printers told me that they are out of carts for these printers and won't have a source of supply available until some time in October. It seems that quite a number of aftermarket cart manufacturers settled Epson's litigation and agreed to bow out of the business. See Wow, this is great news. Maybe the stock market will go up soon. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...facturers.html for more information. Don't ask who the suppler is, they only sell to resellers, not to end users. Please don't reply back to me personally, I don't hae the time to get involved in lengthy interchange acout this issue, but perhaps it's time for the thousands of us who have been successfully using aftermarket carts for years to tell Epson just what we think of their litigation. I will give them a call and congratulate them on a job well done. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Epson wins litigation - aftermarket carts already in short supply
Jim Wright wrote:
anonymous wrote in ups.com: Today my wholesale supplier of aftermarket inkjet cartridges for my Epson 760, 860 and 1160 printers told me that they are out of carts for these printers and won't have a source of supply available until some time in October. It seems that quite a number of aftermarket cart manufacturers settled Epson's litigation and agreed to bow out of the business. As I use this model cartridge I verified several popular online sellers in the US, Canada, UK, eBay, and my own supplier. There is no shortage. Nice try. ;-) Agreed. The post doesn't make sense anyway. Suddenly there's a shortage of cartridges because manufacturers have dropped out and then miraculously they will reappear again in October. Comical to say the least. Most likely another vain attempt by the resident troll. -Taliesyn |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Epson wins litigation - aftermarket carts already in short supply
It seems to me it is time for those who live in countries which have
anti-trust laws (I know the US, Canada and the UK each have some form, and I assume many other "industrialized" countries do as well), to start writing your elected officials and demand that the assorted attorney generals or whatever the title your country's officials keep for those who are responsible to uphold such laws, to become active in protecting consumers from this type of activity. Several inkjet companies have been using (in my opinion abusing) the courts to get injunctions on patent infringements on inkjet and laser cartridges to try to protect their interests on consumables. I have no problem with patent protection, provided that the patent isn't just a method of blocking the function of 3rd party consumable products. To date a number of printer companies have incorporated devices and designs which force 3rd party manufactures to mimic in order for the 3rd party consumable to even function within the printer. These devices often serve no valid or end user useful function other than to prevent 3rd party manufacturers from designing consumable products which will work with the printers. Such designs should not be protected under patent law, when their design is for eliminating 3rd party competitive product from being manufactured and distributed. These companies should be forced, with proper expert rebuttal witnesses that their patents have enough useful value to the end user to justify their being upheld when doing so restricts the manufacture of 3rd party product which breaks these monopolies. The only way this is going to change, which is important for the environment, reducing waste, reducing costs, improving competition, etc, and to stop wasting costs on R&D and design into anti-consumer designs which do little or nothing to improve the user experience and in some cases make it much worse is to both involve your political representatives and to look at alternatives which do not make refilling impossible or a crime, or those products which allow for higher accusation cost while lowering the consumable costs. Our political reps are most likely ignorant of what the courts are deciding, and we need to tell them these policies are ruinous to our environment and are monopolistic in their results. This situation will only get worse if we do not act, as the manufacturers become more brazen. If you care about the costs of running your printer, the environmental impact of the "toss away" business model, or the design defects that are proving you with little to no benefit but further complicating and in some cases making the product fail, your input to your reps may be one way to set things straight. Art anonymous wrote: Today my wholesale supplier of aftermarket inkjet cartridges for my Epson 760, 860 and 1160 printers told me that they are out of carts for these printers and won't have a source of supply available until some time in October. It seems that quite a number of aftermarket cart manufacturers settled Epson's litigation and agreed to bow out of the business. See http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...facturers.html for more information. Don't ask who the suppler is, they only sell to resellers, not to end users. Please don't reply back to me personally, I don't hae the time to get involved in lengthy interchange acout this issue, but perhaps it's time for the thousands of us who have been successfully using aftermarket carts for years to tell Epson just what we think of their litigation. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Epson wins litigation - aftermarket carts already in short supply
I replied to this posting as though it was legitimate. It may not be,
but the problem does exist. Manufacturers of inkjet printers are winning injunctions against many 3rd party suppliers, and I have read of several just last week with Epson products from legitimate sources. The mechanisms are the same regardless of the veracity of this particular posting below, the availability will suffer as more and more 3rd party manufacturers are loaded with fines and other injunctions which make the cost of continuing not worthwhile. If we want our rights as consumers to be protected, so we can purchase 3rd party cartridges or ink and fill our printers with them, we need to get the countries which have such legislation to start looking carefully at the Court decisions coming down and their validity. Art Taliesyn wrote: Jim Wright wrote: anonymous wrote in ups.com: Today my wholesale supplier of aftermarket inkjet cartridges for my Epson 760, 860 and 1160 printers told me that they are out of carts for these printers and won't have a source of supply available until some time in October. It seems that quite a number of aftermarket cart manufacturers settled Epson's litigation and agreed to bow out of the business. As I use this model cartridge I verified several popular online sellers in the US, Canada, UK, eBay, and my own supplier. There is no shortage. Nice try. ;-) Agreed. The post doesn't make sense anyway. Suddenly there's a shortage of cartridges because manufacturers have dropped out and then miraculously they will reappear again in October. Comical to say the least. Most likely another vain attempt by the resident troll. -Taliesyn |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Epson wins litigation - aftermarket carts already in short supply
Arthur Entlich wrote:
It seems to me it is time for those who live in countries which have anti-trust laws (I know the US, Canada and the UK each have some form, and I assume many other "industrialized" countries do as well), to start writing your elected officials and demand that the assorted attorney generals or whatever the title your country's officials keep for those who are responsible to uphold such laws, to become active in protecting consumers from this type of activity. Here in the US, "restraint of trade" is illegal. To me, that's the core of this situation. However, during the term of a patent, the original manufacturer has certain rights that are enforceable. Manufacturers (including drug companies) keep creating new shucks and dives around their existing products, often concealed by "new and exciting features," which give rise to a whole new set of design patents that serve to squelch competition for another cycle. Licensing rights to others can be a civilized way for a manufacturer to maintain control and also allow a reasonable degree competition. Philips has done this twice; first in the case of the Compact Cassette (audio), and later with the Compact Disc. The model has been used, too, with the VHS Video Cassette, which left monopolistic control freak Sony dead in the dust as the open market fostered competition and universal acceptance. Philips became a minor manufacturer of their own technology, but they could sit on the sidelines and collect small unit royalties, making a ton of money off volume as their open system ensured universal acceptance. I don't know if this model could work with printers. Think of it: what would happen if one company developed a good ink/head/firmware system, and licensed it out to all comers who would honor the standards, pay a small license fee, and undersell all the slezeballs who practice their established, unethical, business model. One thing that I expect here in the USA: it's been obvious to me that our present Administration and their Republican enablers can be counted on to carry the water for Goliath against David virtually every single time. Especially when Goliath has been a loyal campaign contributor. Time for a big change? Richard |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Epson wins litigation - aftermarket carts already in short supply
On Sep 2, 8:47 pm, Barry Watzman wrote:
"If we want our rights as consumers to be protected ...." The manufacturers do have some rights also. I understand not liking it, it makes things more expensive for us as consumers. But the manufacturers did put in huge up-front engineering effort to invent these things, and the did get patents on their products. Patents on the products, yes. Patents on ink, sure. But the fact is, a printer is a physical device owned by the consumer. It's not leased or rented. Ford for example can't make a car and require the buyer to buy "Ford" motor oil. That's what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act addresses, this can not be a condition of the warranty. This is the right as a consumer which needs to be protected. Consumables are priced so far in excess of reason it's not even funny. There is a viable alternative, buying bulk ink / buying 3rd party cartridges, but the manufactures equip their devices with countermeasures to prevent a practice which is perfectly legal. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Epson wins litigation - aftermarket carts already in short supply
On Sep 2, 8:23 pm, Barry Watzman wrote:
The printer manufacturers have a RIGHT, within certain limits, to create printers that can only use that manufacturer's consumables. And we, as consumers, have a RIGHT .... not to buy them. Printer manufacturers don't have this right. If they did, then you are locked into buying supplies from a manufacturer, at their prices. Starbucks has no right to require you use Starbucks coffee in their coffee/espresso makers, GE can not require you use their lights in their lamps, Toastmaster has no right to require you put their toast in their toasters. This is not to say these companies can't offer consumables, but this can not be a condition to purchase or use their products. Apple got away with this for a while to some degree... in order to use apple utilities on CD-roms and hard discs, for a time you had to buy apple labeled hard drives. They had NO right to prevent me from buying something identical from someone else, but during the system 7/8 days I would have to buy 3rd party software to format and mount the drives. We as consumers have the "choice" to buy products, and use them how we please. Use of 3rd party ink is a form of protest, until such time as the printer manufacturers understand that they need to adjust their business model. The whole purpose of patents is to keep competitors from making a product that you invented and patented. That design is your intellectual property, and you have every right to keep someone else from making it. Monopoly? EXACTLY ... that is the whole purpose of the patent law, to grant a LEGAL (but temporary) monopoly to someone who invents something. You can patent a type of ink. But you can not patent ink it self, ink is a prior invention. You can create a better ink, but that does not prevent a company from manufacturing another type of ink. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Epson wins litigation - aftermarket carts already in short supply
Not according to my reading of the current laws. Consumables and their
containers which are required to make the product function are being tied to the printer, which is illegal in US and other laws. These laws were designed exactly to prevent the types of monopolies or requirements to use consumables of a specific manufacturers. These laws were used to stop car manufacturers from requiring that people purchase their brands of consumables to maintain their warranty clauses. The issue is most of the inkjet cartridge patents involved are bogus and are only there to protect the sales of their inks. If Epson, for instance, allowed you to shut off the ink monitor completely to allow you to use 3rd party ink cartridges, so you "lost" the minimum benefit they provided, that might be acceptable, since in the case of the Epson printers, running the printer head dry isn't fatal, but forcing you to use their cartridge system to have the printer even operate is bogus. In fact, it is probably why Epson has been unable to get the chip resetters off the market. Canon is even worse in this area. Their new cartridges are "unbreakable" in terms of the code, and those printers will indeed develop failed heads if the ink runs out, and they had a fully functional optical system on earlier models and replaced it with a chip that cannot be reset. You can turn the monitor off, but you must be diligent not to allow the ink levels to run dry, or the heads will fail. Again, another bogus patent to provide a system that was not required for the product to function well, as an alternative technology was already working. For a host of reasons, these manufacturers should be forced to alter the approach they have taken. Perhaps the answer is for someone to come up with a competitive model and try to educate people to pay more for the printers so that the ink doesn't end up the only profit engine. If the acts can't do it, the printer manufacturers should be slapped with a nice levy on every printer that ends up discarded in the landfill. The environmental impact caused by the current business model is not sustainable. The Sherman Act, as does the updated Clayton act states: http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/...s/345us594.htm (b) A "tying" arrangement violates § 1 of the Sherman Act when a seller enjoys a monopolistic position in the market for the "tying" product and a substantial volume of commerce in the "tied" product is restrained. International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392. Pp. 608-609. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/business/antitrust.html TYING ARRANGEMENTS An illegal tie-in occurs when a seller with market power over one product (the "tying product") will only sell it to buyers who agree to buy another product (the "tied product"). Example Wonderdrug Co. has developed and patented a revolutionary new drug that can cure many people in mental institutions and allow them to return to their homes. In order to obtain this drug, Wonderdrug forces a patient to also obtain a very expensive, regularly scheduled blood test from a subsidiary company. In fact, the blood test could be performed by any company or hospital with no impact on the drug's effectiveness. This tying arrangement is unlawful, and would not be allowed under antitrust law. Do some research. The law, if properly interpreted, is on the side of the 3rd party ink and cartridge providers, it is just that the antitrust laws have been ignored of late... as others have suggested, there is a political climate that is having its influence right now. Art Barry Watzman wrote: "I have no problem with patent protection, provided that the patent isn't just a method of blocking the function of 3rd party consumable products." You should have no problem with it even if the patent IS "just a method of blocking the function of 3rd party consumable products" The whole purpose of patents is to keep competitors from making a product that you invented and patented. That design is your intellectual property, and you have every right to keep someone else from making it. Monopoly? EXACTLY ... that is the whole purpose of the patent law, to grant a LEGAL (but temporary) monopoly to someone who invents something. [But, at the same time, let us note that refilling an ink cartridge, in and of itself, never violates a patent. Of course, there is the matter of the fact that simply refilling a cartridge, if that cartridge has a "chip" in it, may not create a working cartridge ... that is another matter.] The printer manufacturers have a RIGHT, within certain limits, to create printers that can only use that manufacturer's consumables. And we, as consumers, have a RIGHT .... not to buy them. Arthur Entlich wrote: It seems to me it is time for those who live in countries which have anti-trust laws (I know the US, Canada and the UK each have some form, and I assume many other "industrialized" countries do as well), to start writing your elected officials and demand that the assorted attorney generals or whatever the title your country's officials keep for those who are responsible to uphold such laws, to become active in protecting consumers from this type of activity. Several inkjet companies have been using (in my opinion abusing) the courts to get injunctions on patent infringements on inkjet and laser cartridges to try to protect their interests on consumables. I have no problem with patent protection, provided that the patent isn't just a method of blocking the function of 3rd party consumable products. To date a number of printer companies have incorporated devices and designs which force 3rd party manufactures to mimic in order for the 3rd party consumable to even function within the printer. These devices often serve no valid or end user useful function other than to prevent 3rd party manufacturers from designing consumable products which will work with the printers. Such designs should not be protected under patent law, when their design is for eliminating 3rd party competitive product from being manufactured and distributed. These companies should be forced, with proper expert rebuttal witnesses that their patents have enough useful value to the end user to justify their being upheld when doing so restricts the manufacture of 3rd party product which breaks these monopolies. The only way this is going to change, which is important for the environment, reducing waste, reducing costs, improving competition, etc, and to stop wasting costs on R&D and design into anti-consumer designs which do little or nothing to improve the user experience and in some cases make it much worse is to both involve your political representatives and to look at alternatives which do not make refilling impossible or a crime, or those products which allow for higher accusation cost while lowering the consumable costs. Our political reps are most likely ignorant of what the courts are deciding, and we need to tell them these policies are ruinous to our environment and are monopolistic in their results. This situation will only get worse if we do not act, as the manufacturers become more brazen. If you care about the costs of running your printer, the environmental impact of the "toss away" business model, or the design defects that are proving you with little to no benefit but further complicating and in some cases making the product fail, your input to your reps may be one way to set things straight. Art anonymous wrote: Today my wholesale supplier of aftermarket inkjet cartridges for my Epson 760, 860 and 1160 printers told me that they are out of carts for these printers and won't have a source of supply available until some time in October. It seems that quite a number of aftermarket cart manufacturers settled Epson's litigation and agreed to bow out of the business. See http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...facturers.html for more information. Don't ask who the suppler is, they only sell to resellers, not to end users. Please don't reply back to me personally, I don't hae the time to get involved in lengthy interchange acout this issue, but perhaps it's time for the thousands of us who have been successfully using aftermarket carts for years to tell Epson just what we think of their litigation. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Epson wins ITC ruling | measekite | Printers | 14 | April 9th 07 07:16 AM |
Epson battles the aftermarket compatibles and wins | Yianni | Printers | 6 | November 4th 06 08:33 PM |
Epson C88 - what aftermarket inks? | Arthur Entlich | Printers | 1 | July 20th 06 11:04 PM |
Epson C88 - what aftermarket inks? | Martin | Printers | 0 | July 19th 06 08:16 AM |
Why are northwood CPU's in such short supply? | CPU Guy | Intel | 7 | June 28th 05 12:46 PM |