End of low cost print cartridges?

http://www.cw360.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=119532&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=6&liChannelID=28&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1 ^

[rs79bm]

A court case in the US involving printer manufacturer Lexmark could have major implications for IT users in the UK and stifle the market for low-cost refurbished printer cartridges.

Lexmark is seeking an injunction against US firm Static Control Components to prevent it from producing computer chips used to make copies of toner cartridges that work in two Lexmark laser printers.

Lexmark claimed the firm is breaching the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The fear is that other suppliers such as Hewlett-Packard could follow suit and users will be forced to use expensive proprietory cartridges in all their printers.

Supplying cartridges is a profitable business for printer manufacturers such as Lexmark, which sell relatively cheap hardware and recoup costs through maintenance kits and toner cartridges. By using smart chips in their machines, suppliers aim to stop users buying cheaper cartridges from third-party suppliers.

However, Malcolm Hancock, principal analyst at Gartner, said the low-cost cartridge manufacturers could be granted a lifeline in the shape of legislation such as the European Union's Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, which will require companies such as Lexmark to ship products that can be recycled and reused.

Hancock said low-cost/refillable printer cartridges account for about 20% of the market.

SCC has been barred from producing the chips until the end of the month when a US district court judge is due to deliver his ruling on the case.

[rs79bm]

I don't think this will fly.

[Bogey78O]

In all fairness if Lexmark owns the patent on this chip design then it's theirs. However once they seel the cartridge it's the consumers right to use it as they see fit in my opinion which includes recycling the cartridge.

[RightWinger]

End of low cost print cartridges

Low cost???
$27-$30
The darn things should only cost about $10.

[savedbygrace]

Sometimes the printer costs less than the replacement cartridges. So, the incentive is to buy a new printer, rather than the cartridges, and pitch the old printer. Do the greenies know about this?

[RightWinger]

You got that right.
They'll practically give you the printer so you'll have to fork over $30 for each cartridge.

[Arkinsaw]

Sometimes the printer costs less than the replacement cartridges. So, the incentive is to buy a new printer, rather than the cartridges, and pitch the old printer. Do the greenies know about this?

I knew somebody who would buy the printer, get the ink cartridges out, put them in his printer, and then sell the printer on Ebay. It was actually cheaper than buying print cartridges. But then somebody got wind of it and now they are selling the printers with a "limited quantity introductory" ink cartridge.

[glorgau]

I would think that people considering printer purchases - like those planning for a business - would take the availability of cartridges as part of the Total cost of Ownership. Those who sell only printers with proprietary expensive toner replacements _will_ find themselves losing market share.

[TheBattman]

The issue is the cheaper "generic" cartridges that 3rd party companies are selling. MAny of the new printers have cartridges that have a microchip in them that tells the printer that a new cartridge has been inserted. Many of these you cannot just refill as the chip tells the printer that the cartridge is old/empty.

Many of these generic ink cartridges sell for less than half of the equivalent OEM cartridge.

One example:

One of my printers in an Epson Stylus Color 850 (was not a cheap). Epson cartridges, last time I bought them, were around $34 each. Generic cartridges for this printer can be found as cheap as $4.00.

Now, there is one catch to all of this - My experience is that every generic ink I have tried has been far inferior to the factory ink. Blacks tend to not be as dark, colors do not match well with what's on your screen. Many internet message boards contain comments both good and bad for these generic inks. Primarily - those that can get them to work without clogging the printer (a very common problem) and can tolerate the lighter, less intense ink find these cartridges to be a reasonable way to save significant money. The remaining majority have found that nothing really matches up with the OEM cartridges.

I personally have had one printer ruined by generic inks - and most printer companies will void your warranty for using non OEM cartridges.

The actual cost to manufacture these ink tanks are about the same regardless of the manufacturer (OEM vs generic). If companies can make a profit selling cartridges for $5-15, then the OEM companies should be able to for $20 or less. I really do wonder about the EnviroNazis - why do they not scream and holler about this waste? You can buy a decent printing inkjet for $50 or less. This printer will come with cartridges that actually are smaller than the normal refills. You go to buy a new cartridge - $35-50 each!

[BooBoo1000]

Anyone who has replaced the black and colored cartridges
can attest to the terrible price of these things. It is the old " Gillete Razor" deal, give them the razor and charge the devel out of them for the blades.

[snooker]

>>> They'll practically give you the printer so you'll have to fork over $30 for each cartridge.

Razors are free. Oh you want blades, they are $5 for three.

snooker

[savedbygrace]

The next step is to figure out a way to disable the printer's need for a chip in the cartridges. I'm sure I'm behind the curve on that thought, and I'm sure it would violate the digital copyright law, but . . . .

[chiller]

later read

[Dan(9698)]

I just bought a Lexmark Z22 at Walmart. It had a color cartrige but no black. I bought a black & it works just fine.

I have been using refill kits for about 3 years in a Cannon and HP printers. They have worked just fine.

I saw an earlier post about this topic and so was concerned that I could not refill for the Lexmark. I had ordered rifill kits but I did not know if they would work.

The color cartrige ran out of ink a few days ago, so I refilled it, and the ink indicator showed a full cartrige. You have to install it as if it were a new cartrige.

It works just fine.

I get refill kits from dbproducts.com.

The refill kits they sell have a jig that allows you to use a syringe to suck some ink and any bubbles out the bottom. After you do that it works great.

[RedWhiteBlue]

bump

[FreePaul]

I tried one cheap cartridge in my Epson 850. Never got a print out of it other than smeared paper. It leaked ink which took me about two hours to clean out of the machine. I've also had some genuine Epson cartridges which didn't print properly but they didn't spill ink. The price for OEM cartridges is ridiculous.

[daviddennis]

I work for a major remanufacturer of toner cartridges. Unlike many of our competitors, we disassemble the cartridge and replace any worn components. This makes an enormous difference in the print quality and reliability of our units; one of our customers notes that our print quality is better than the equivalent HP brand cartridge.

We presently buy replacement chips for Lexmark and HP cartridges from Static Control, so we're on the leading edge of this problem and we'll be greatly affected by it if Lexmark wins.

I believe Lexmark is likely to win the suit because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is pretty clear that reverse-engineering security software, such as the chip, is illegal. The DMCA is also loathed by many members of the public, so it's not clear that it will remain law, thanks to consequences such as this case.

Our factory manager feels that, although Lexmark may pursue this suit and prevent the chips from being made for Lexmark printers, it's doubtful that HP or IBM (which now makes a new series of printers that are modified Lexmark units but higher quality) will follow. The reason is that this kind of suit and the resulting publicity produces a backlash against all HP and all IBM products, something the two enormous companies are not going to want. In the case of Lexmark, the suit may be worthwhile because printers and printer cartridges are the company's only business.

HP printers accept a chip-free cartridge after issuing a warning. Lexmark printer shut down completely. That should give you an idea of the relative seriousness of HP and Lexmark in the war against compatibiles.

If HP is indeed less hard-line on this issue, as I believe is the case, my best advice to anyone concerned about this issue is to buy HP laser printers and encourage your employers to do likewise. You might spend a little more on the printer, but you're going to save a lot of money on cartridges.

Our customers love our toner cartridges, and they prove it by being exceptionally loyal. Our inkjets have had some teething troubles; based on what I hear, I would not recommend buying non-OEM inkjets unless you want trouble or can live with lower quality. You may want to seriously consider upgrading to a laser printer, especially since HP has a neat colour LaserJet now for $999. If you print a moderate to high volume, you're going to save a lot of money with that printer versus an inkjet.

As long as there's at least one company that builds printers with clonable cartridges, I think it will be tough for Lexmark or any other company with a "hard line" stance on this question to sell printers once the case is widely understood. This is especially true considering HP's commanding market share.

Hope that helps.

D

[Robert_Paulson2]

one of our hp chips... said the brand new cartridge was empty... when we installed it... and so I tore it open... completely full... you could not squeeze another ounce of powder into it...

MOST OF them, say they are empty and lock up the printer when in fact... there remains up to 20 percent of capacity in the case.

It is a scam.
It is reprehensible.
I understand why people HATE big corporations.
they are virtually unassailable on things such as this.

that is why folks cheer when somebody sues mcdonalds for the grease on its french fries.

big business is often corrupt. we have a lot of fish to fry, as business and government collude to steal from the public... but a few major legal hits against the digital millenium copyright act... would be so righteous.

it's bad law.

[Richard Kimball]

I personally have had one printer ruined by generic inks - and most printer companies will void your warranty for using non OEM cartridges.

While the companies try to make you think this, they cannot, in most jurisdictions, void a warranty for using generic inks. However, if the generic ink clogs or damages your print head, since the damage was not workmanship or materials, the manufacturer is under no obligation to make repairs.

I do my printing with an Epson 1280, and most of my printing is photos, so I go through a lot of ink. I've considered the continuous flow systems, but am just afraid of spending nearly 300 bucks and ending up with inferior performance or damaging my printer.

Every generic ink I've ever tried has been terrible.