As if they didn't have us on a tight enough leash...

[Datazoid]

http://news.com.com/2100-1028-990501.html?tag=fd_top

Intellectual property, my a**. This is screwing customers, plain and simple, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Think about it. On this same note, couldn't computer companies build chips into their computers that will only recognize components (ie. RAM chips, etc) with their stamp of approval, and cry foul if anybody tries to get around it?

Maybe if they considered lowering ink prices from the upper stratosphere, more people would buy OEM brand inks, instead of spending hours, days, or weeks attempting to get some unbranded ink to work in their printer, only to find that it was "sabotaged" from the start. (And by the way, I don't remember any disclaimer that the only cartridges that would work in the printer are OEM, in my case Epson - they don't let you know that until you open the box.

(sorry if this is a dupe)

 

[Eniregnat]

I have never been fond of Lexmark, as mentioned in the article. HP is against the lawsuit, bold as they make money off the cartridges. The technology is a worrying one. It could easily be applied to just about any electronic device, thus keeping you from using anything other than the “authorized” refill, replacement, or augmentation part.

In a competitive world, this suit may be overturned because it stifles competition. If they offered manufacturers the rites to use or produce a compatible product for a fair fee, and somebody was bypassing the technology, then I could see the suit winning. Oddly, I don’t think the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It would be like suing Oakly for providing color-altering and contrast technology to movie viewers, because they wear them during a movie and Oakly sold the product to improve their viewing.

Where they may win is not based on the DMCA , but on how the company reverse engineered the technology so that they could bypass it. I'm not completely familiar with the case. I’ve only read the basics, but this is my take.

By the way, any manufacturer /remanufacturer that doesn’t notify you that the product is not compatible with your printer is even shoddier than the originator of the protective technology. Again, my take.

 

[e-coli]

Actually, Lexmark probably loses a considerable amount of money on refillalb e print cartridges....and I don't mean from lost sales of their own brand names ink cartridges. The refill cartridges tend to clog the print heads, and then people send the printer back to the company under warranty. Then Lexmark has to pay to have the print heads replaced all becaese someone decided to use low-grade ink.

It's probably a smart move for them as a company.

 

[Eniregnat]

It's more a question of consumer choice. Lexmark could the technology to identify if somebody used the "wrong" kind of ink cartridge. Another peeve is that printers almost always come with some sort of half (not full) cartridge.

Personally I don't use cheep/remanufactured toner or ink . I'm on a budget, and I have to save to get the more reliable product.

Strange, nobody has complained that Segway.com has coded all of its electronics so that board level replacement in nearly impossible. It's part of their anti-theft/anti-knock off technology. Seems good to them and the general public.

I do think that Datazoid is right- Lexmark should note it on the box. I also think that HP is correct, it doesn’t fall under the intent of the DMCA