A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Printers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 8th 07, 09:18 PM posted to comp.periphs.printers
Richard Steinfeld[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default 3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.

Which is the ****, and which is the Shinola?

Richard
  #32  
Old November 8th 07, 11:44 PM posted to comp.periphs.printers
Nicolaas Hawkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 123
Default 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  
Old November 8th 07, 11:45 PM posted to comp.periphs.printers
Nicolaas Hawkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 123
Default 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  
Old November 9th 07, 03:07 PM posted to comp.periphs.printers
TJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default 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  
Old November 9th 07, 07:02 PM posted to comp.periphs.printers
Gary Tait
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default 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  
Old November 9th 07, 10:10 PM posted to comp.periphs.printers
Tony[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 600
Default 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  
Old November 10th 07, 12:29 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers
Burt[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default 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  
Old November 10th 07, 12:32 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers
Burt[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default 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.


  #39  
Old November 10th 07, 12:49 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,433
Default 3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.



Tony wrote:

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.

And God said let their be light
And Epson created light


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.

And God created the earth in 6 days
And God rested on the 7th day

And that is when toner carts were made


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.

He is in da business.  Do you want to believe what he says.


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

Oh but it has and that is why Epson has been winning lawsuits.


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

  #40  
Old November 10th 07, 02:16 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers
Tony[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 600
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 06:18 PM
Online store for Printer Ink Cartridge,Laser Toner,Solid Ink,Refill Kits,Ribbon Cartridge kathy tian Printers 5 November 11th 05 03:29 AM
3rd party cartridge vendors Epson C84 Jim McColl Printers 3 March 17th 05 04:57 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.