Re: The Inkjet Cartel
- From: measekite <inkystinky@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:10:33 GMT
Arthur Entlich wrote:
I could not agree with you more, and I think that if the public were to lobby their elected officials and stress that the actions taken by the printer manufacturers is a violation of the antitrust legislation of the US (Sherman, Clayton and other acts) which for years protected the public from just such actions, we might turn this situation around.
The decisions being reached in the Courts have been based upon patent violations, but the real issue is not intellectual or material rights protection, but that the printer manufacturers are requiring certain branded consumables be used with their products, a type of tying that is illegal in contracts under the antitrust acts.
The printer mfg are not requiring anything. What should be required on all websites is that the advertisement or description should require that the generic be branded with the formulator name. Then you could see which of the relabelers sell xyzink and then you would be able to tell more easily what a fair price is for that and you could soon determine if that brand was either good or bad. It would be easy if you had trouble with that brand not go to to another relabeler and buy the same clogging material under a disguised name.
Indeed, it could be argued that many of the so-called features integrated into ink and toner cartridges have no real purpose other than to place patented technologies into them which the printers are designed to require in order to work with the cartridges.
A mfg can designe their product any way they want. They do not have to design a product to be easy for a relabeler to ruin their machine. Let the relabelers be innovative and produce innovative quality stuff. Then the price would rise but would be less money than OEM. Since their would (in this case) be quality ink around at cheaper prices then the OEM would drop their prices and all would benefit except the fundamentalists.
Then, the manufacturers sue 3rd party manufacturers of the consumables using the power of the patent law to claim infringement,
And they have a right to do just that.
when the only reason the patented design is used in the 3rd party product is because the printer checks for it and will not work without it. It could easily be argued that some of these patented systems actually harm the printing experience and lessen the functionality of the printer
They certainly do not
, or make reuse or refilling of the cartridges difficult or impossible.
Hooray
Until a large enough constituency is formed to lobby and demand of their legislators that this situation is corrected,
They should demand full disclosure
for a myriad of reasons, including environmental, economic, and, as I stated, functionality, these companies will continue to use patent protection legislation to prevent 3rd party consumables from fairly competing in the marketplace..
There is a long overdue need for change.
Art
Richard Steinfeld wrote:
BobbytheBrain wrote:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/15405080.htm
Anybody ever used G&G HP Remanfactured Cartridges before? Just
curious if they are of decent quality.
It's almost a moot point. It was just last week that I read that Epson was suing the same company. One aftermarket vendor has already pulled the brand from its line.
Quoting the Wall Street Journal piece that you referenced: "In fiscal 2005, H-P made more than 80 percent of its $5.6 billion in operating profit from ink and toner supplies, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co."
Let this figure sink in!
Almost _all_ of this vast corporation's profit comes from ink and toner!
There's also the issue of the captive customer. Why, what's the difference between Epson, and let's say, your friendly neighborhood street corner drug pusher?
With the chips and lawsuits, I submit that we have been witnessing a cartel at work, engaged in a practice that's illegal in the United States: de-facto restraint of trade, preventing compeition. I'd have nothing against these folks if they behaved in the spirit of open competition.
I'd be willing to buy OEM supplies if they were priced fairly and honestly, and sold in a fee and open marketplace that was competitive. Maybe the OEMs could license others to make interchangeable cartridges that all work (as has been done with audio cassette tape, video tape, etc.). They could charge a premium price for their OEM products as is done in other endeavors: the higher price would be justified by, maybe, better quality control. The R&D cost should be incorporated in the price of the printer itself: all of it!
Comments?
Richard
- References:
- HP Suing G&G Ninestar Image Co - August 31, 2006
- From: BobbytheBrain
- The Inkjet Cartel
- From: Richard Steinfeld
- Re: The Inkjet Cartel
- From: Arthur Entlich
- HP Suing G&G Ninestar Image Co - August 31, 2006
- Prev by Date: Re: Fading photos - Why?
- Next by Date: Re: Fading photos - Why?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Inkjet Cartel
- Next by thread: Re: The Inkjet Cartel
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
