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/antitrust/summaries/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 said:
Re: "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 said:
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
