Lexmark, HP Using Patent Law To Try To Block Replacement Ink Cartridges From The Market

from the there-is-no-free-market-in-black-gold dept

Wed, Aug 25th 2010 3:22am — Mike Masnick

Want to know why it would cost $5.9 billion to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool with printer ink? Perhaps look to our beloved US patent laws. Five years ago, we pointed out that HP was claiming that refill ink cartridges for its printers violated its patents, and that it was building up a team of scientists not to invent anything new -- but to analyze the chemical makeup of competitor's ink to see if they could hit them with a patent infringement lawsuit.

Every so often, we hear another bunch of claims from HP about ink refillers infringing on its patents, and just a few weeks ago, we heard that HP was asking the US ITC to block the import of refill ink cartridges from foreign competitors, claiming patent infringement.

Not to be left out, it looks like HP competitor Lexmark is getting into the game as well, and has also asked the ITC to bar the import of ink refills from 24 companies. Lexmark is also suing those same companies in court, showing once again how the ITC loophole gives companies two bites at the same apple.

Of course, it's fascinating to see Lexmark jump into the patent infringement game on ink refills. After all, it famously tried and failed to use the DMCA and copyright law to stop ink refills. It was right after that when HP started using patent claims, so it looks like it took a bit of time for Lexmark to get together a patent plan.

Of course, would it be nice if, rather than relying on government granted monopolies to block perfectly legitimate competition, these companies actually competed in the marketplace? Or is that too much to ask?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: ink, patents, printers
Companies: hp, itc, lexmark

69 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

cc (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 3:50am

If they could brick the "infringing" printers from far away, they'd do it -- just like Microsoft did with the Xbox last year, and just like Apple is planning to do with jailbroken iPhones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 5:40am
  
  Re:
  They do, to a point. If you read the "user agreement" if you put non-HP approved ink into your printers, it voids the warranty. I used to be a field tech for HP. Some of the new high end printers wont print unless there is an HP coded toner in it. HP only approves of their ink, and then there is a security firm or two that makes ink for the security enabled HP printers. That is it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harry, 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:11am

Perhaps if consumers werent so cheap that they force printer manufacturers to lose $100 or so on every printer they sell, they would't have to make up that lost money by overcharging for ink, then it would be OK for other companies to sell ink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:23am
  
  Re:
  hhmm..
  
  1. Invent a product that costs $X to manufacture.
  2. Sell product for $X plus healthy margin.
  3. Find that no-one is willing to by product for $X+margin.
  5. Blame consumers for being cheap.
  6. Ask for government help to protect your business.
  
  ..Actually I guess that does sound familiar.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - martyburns (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    whoops missed one..
    
    7. learn to count.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 5:16am
  
  Re:
  Come on Harry, Its not the consumers fault, if you need a printer you buy it. Regardless of its cost. It is the manufacturers gamble to recoup by over charging for consumables. What next sueing paper manufacurers for none HP,Lexmark branded paper. Their Ink brings nothing new with regards to ink quality so why should I pay more?.
  Do you know that they have made it cheaper to replace your printer than the ink?. When my laser runs dry I buy another 1, because it costs less than the toner. I then sell the old printer & have another years guarantee. BUT THATS NOT MY FAULT IS IT?, its common sense..sheesh
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ScaredOfTheMan, 25 Aug 2010 @ 5:28am
  
  Re: #2
  "Perhaps if consumers werent so cheap" or Perhaps if HP and Lexmark weren't so greedy. You say potato, I say potato.
  
  If your business model can't handle a "cheap" customer, then maybe you need a new model.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mattarse (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re: #2
    "You say potato, I say potato."
    
    When I read this you are saying the same word twice ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 6:01am
  
  Re:
  So, by your logic, nobody would buy printers if both printers and cartridges were priced reasonably? That sounds rather silly...
  
  Every other device with "official" replacement parts - from cars to cameras - has "unofficial" replacement parts to compete with. If printer manufacturers simply gave reasons to pay the extra for higher quality parts, they wouldn't have to resort to underhanded legal tactics to stop the other refills.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- coco Was Screwed, 25 Aug 2010 @ 9:59am
  
  Re:
  They don't "make up lost money" ink is a major source of revenue...It has a massive profit margin and provides the majority of profit for the printing Business unit. I worked for Tektronix (now Xerox) way back when and we went to great lengths to protect that revenue stream by changing formulations for each new printer and creating "keyed" ink shapes that were "patented". I personally thought it was BS that we sold 11 cents worth of ink material for over $25. But you know R&D costs and all...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wh, 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:13am

Probably a minority viewpoint
I'm sure to be in the minority here, but look at this from another perspective. Lexmark and HP spend millions of dollars developing the technology and sell the printers for break-even at best. The only return on investment they have is the ink cartridges. If people don't buy genuine ink, the companies will have no incentive to continue to innovate, and the market will stagnate. These knock-offs simply refill or copy the technology of others and, without the huge development bill, can undercut the price of the genuine article.

How would you feel if a company went through the garbage dump collecting empty Coke bottles, refilling them with their recipe, and selling at a lower price? Misled, at best--at worst, you don't wanna think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cc (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:31am
  
  Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
  Then they *shouldn't* sell the printers for break-even.
  
  This is a business model choice: should they make a fixed profit off every printer they sell, or should they keep making more and more profits off incredibly over-priced ink?
  
  If they go for the first, they have to keep innovating to make better and better printers so people will keep buying new ones; if they go for the second, they have to make sure to have a monopoly on ink.
  
  Consumers would benefit from the first option, but printer manufacturers would benefit from the second...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:51am
  
  Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
  Lexmark and HP spend millions of dollars developing the technology
  
  Puh-lease. You don't really believe they haven't recouped that money (x-fold) over the years? And no, printers aren't exactly rocket science either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 5:22am
  
  Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
  Better than dumping millions of tonnes of plastic waste which will take thousands of years to decompose in a landfill.
  Its called recycling - The little postage paid envelope that comes with the ink allows you to return the empty one for re-filling free. Whats the problem? huh!
  
  I buy only re-cycled ink carts, SAVE THE PLANET WOOOO!!!
  
  No you are not in a minority. Humans waste everything they get their mitts on, and you are only human.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alex (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 5:29am
  
  Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
  wh: Your analysis is totally wrong, showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the compatible inks market. When you buy compatible ink cartridges, you know that that is what you are getting. Compatible ink manufacturers do NOT try to pretend they are anything other than exactly that: ink in cartridges that are *compatible* with a particular printer. It is NOT they equivalent of selling their own formula in empty Coke bottles: they are packaged differently, with the name of the ink manufacturer on the carton, and probably the name of the printer type(s) they are intended to work with in small(ish) print. They DO NOT PRETEND that they are selling ink made by HP, or Canon, or whatever. They generally use their own ink formulae, which for any compatibles manufacturer is most likely to be the same for all cartridges, regardless of printer brand they are intended to work with. Certainly one can argue that the printout quality is not going to be so good as with genuine inks, but you get what you pay for, and there is NO ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joseph Kingsley, 25 Aug 2010 @ 5:34am
  
  Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
  Damn right you're in the minority, and I marked your post as funny - not because I'm laughing with you, but laughing AT you.
  
  I'm supposed to feel sorry for HP or Lexmark now because their business model of selling cheap printers and expensive ink isn't to their liking? What the hell did they expect?
  
  I would HAPPILY pay a premium on new printers if I didn't get jacked around on ink.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BearGriz72 (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 8:39pm
    
    Re: Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
    "I would HAPPILY pay a premium on new printers if I didn't get jacked around on ink."
    
    Ditto! ... Hell Ditto^3!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ohio cyclist, 27 Aug 2010 @ 7:46am
    
    Cheap ink, good printer
    You are in luck. You can get 500 page ink cartridge for $5
    
    http://www.lexmark.com/gowaybeyondprinting/?c=lex_20091030_501
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 5:39am
  
  Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
  I would feel compelled to do better than the competition.
  
  This is not an emotional issue, who cares what the competition feels?
  
  You wanna know why they had to do this?
  Because the Japanese did it first they were selling their printers at a loss and making up on the ink, you think they stopped to think about their competitors feelings? yah right LoL
  
  Now some people came along and found a way to make ink cartridges on their own or refill old ones what is the problem with that?
  
  Printer manufacture's are owned a market now?
  How about telephone companies should they have a monopoly on what devices connect to their networks?
  
  How about car, planes, electric power, TV sets, sound systems, music equipment etc they all should have control of what people do with them after they are bought?
  
  Sure why not, I want to see car manufacture's suing the accessory industry, I want to see the music equipment industry suing musicians for not paying them, I want to see TV sets which excludes competing equipment from functioning on them that would be great can you imagine how vibrant the market would be.
  
  Yes we need to take into account the feeling of the manufacturer how rude we are, because they only have good intentions and never a corporation abused anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BearGriz72 (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 8:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
    You forgot to close your sarcasm tag, creating a buffer overrun in my language interpreter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2011 @ 7:28am
    
    Re: Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
    How about telephone companies should they have a monopoly on what devices connect to their networks?
    ----
    i'm guessing you're 'young-ish'. cause ma bell did exactly that with their landline service decades ago. we could only use their phones- princess models or square counter top models- plus there was a monthly lease fee.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 6:46am
  
  Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
  your coke analogy is incorrect. What you're illustrating is a violation of trademark law and one that harms the consumer. The company that is refilling Coke bottles with their own soda and selling it is harming the consumer by selling an infringing product (I think I'm buying coke but I'm not). The competing ink companies do not label their boxes with the HP or Lexmark logo, they simply sell their own ink that is compatible with HP or Lexmark printers. the consumer is not harmed.
  
  Is the competitor's ink inferior in some way? Does it injure me as a consumer? Why should I care if HP and Lexmark can't make huge profit off of ink cartridges? HP and Lexmark could simply sell a more expensive printer.
  
  Besides, when was the last time a printer was truly innovative? And I'm not talking about the addition of a color LCD screen or SD card reader.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 7:10am
  
  Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
  "sell the printers for break-even at best"
  
  Why? Because they know they can rape the customer for ink and make a bigger profit in the long run. They could adopt a more customer-friendly model of charging more for the printer and then allow customers to choose ink supplier (giving quality and other incentives to choose their brand - they're the ones with access to the technology after all), but this current rip-off model is too lucrative.
  
  "These knock-offs simply refill or copy the technology of others and, without the huge development bill, can undercut the price of the genuine article."
  
  The same can be said of replacement car tyres, water filters, light bulbs, SD cards, hell even printer paper. Yet, all of those industries thrive with official and "knock-off" brands co-exiting. Why should printer be any different?
  
  "How would you feel if a company went through the garbage dump collecting empty Coke bottles, refilling them with their recipe, and selling at a lower price? "
  
  Instead of building a hilariously inept strawman, how about we face the facts of what is happening. No, recycled food products sound like a very bad idea. But, Coke competes with Pepsi, RC and other cola brands but come out top. Why? Because their product is perceived as the best and many people are willing to pay a premium for it. Again, why should ink cartridges be any different?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave, 26 Aug 2010 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
  This is absolute rubbish. It would be like a car manufacturer telling you to buy their own brand of fuel or a drinking glass maker instructing that only their make of water should be used for drinking. Ink is a consumable and, as such, should be able to be made and used by anybody. There's nothing mystical about ink. How would have users of old-fashioned fountain pens in the past have felt if they were told to use only ink made by the pen manufacturer? Some sense needs to be drummed into this situation!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr.A, 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:31am

Ink vs Gasoline
@ws
Your argument is flawed. How would you feel about being forced to buy GM/FORD/TOYOTA/GELLY gasoline for your car at a price 20-100 times higher than market average?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:35am

"Lexmark, HP Using Patent Law To Try To Block Replacement Ink Cartridges From The Market"

This is old news, printer manufacturers have been trying to use patents to prevent competing companies from making competing ink for their printers for a long time. It's so sad .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Midnight, 25 Aug 2010 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re: Lexmark, HP Using Patent law.
  Unfortunately, many of those 3rd party inks are garbage, often damaging printers and in HP's case, will void your warranty!
  
  As for Lexmark, if they were to lower their prices for replacement cartridges, Maybe the consumer Might be inclined to buy their inks. Why anybody buys a Lexzmark printer in the first place, baffles the mind!!
  
  As it stands, you can buy a Lexmark piece of junk printer for under $79.00, but the replacement ink cost over $100.00!!
  Might as well buy a new printer every 3 months!!
  
  When you buy a bundled package at any big box store, which printer do they usually/always include?
  Why, Lexmark of course! They can't sell their printers, so might as well give them away!! :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:40am

I blame them, 20$ for the printer, 30 to 75$ or more depending, for ink, for real????

of course I will buy the cheapest ink out there
their business model is to sell you the product that you will have for awhile, the printer, then screw you over non stop for ink,

next the will start trying to sue for the fact that you aren't using "their" paper, that will be the next likely target

screw companies that operate that way, I got to have ink, sell it at reasonable prices and I would not buy competitors ink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bucky, 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:44am

printer ink
Its funny how Kodak has entered the market and been doing well by using cheaper ink as its selling feature. The printers themselves cost more than their competitors, yet people buy them because, in the long run, they are saving on the cost of ink. It could be that the HP and Lexmark have just misjudged what people want so they are attempting to cover up their mismanagement with silly lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- econoline, 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:12pm
  
  Re: printer ink
  Actually Kodak uses a very suspect test method that relies on continuous printing to make their claims. If you look at the amount of ink lost to servicing and the amount thrown away because they use ganged supplies the total cost of ownership will be much higher for most people. In addition the quality is low, I would never buy a kodak and I test these things for a living.
  
  -ink insider
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Del Boy, 25 Aug 2010 @ 5:41am

Here's another technique: Epson

They chip their ink cart's. Which stops you from buying none Epson brand ink.
If you try a compatible then you risk it flooding your printer & ruining it, plus all the crap of it identifying the ink levels etc.

I would prefer to buy a more expensive printer that would allow me to buy compatible inks - so to bring the long term cost of ownership down.

That way printer manufacturers don't lose money & over time we save money.

But what do I know?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 5:58am
  
  Re:
  And you think HP, lexmark, canon don't do it already?
  
  They all have the microchip that ask for the code to work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 5:53am

Competition is dead in America.
And soon research and development will follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm, 25 Aug 2010 @ 6:03am

If I bought a new car for $500, but then servicing costs $5000 a time then the cost of ownership over 3 years would be $15500. Manufacturers lose money & I spend more than I expected.

If I bought a new car for $10000, but servicing cost me $100 a time then the cost of ownership over 3 years would be $10300. No brainer buy the expensive car.

SO....

HP,Lexmark & Epson lose money on printer sales, because they have the most stupid business model ever conceived.

$50 for a printer & $60 to replace the ink.
or
$200 for a printer & $20 to replace ink.

Depending on the volumes of printing do the math... it would be cheaper to buy the more expensive printer.
Therefore the manufacturers don't lose money. And we save money!!!

Consumers aren't as stupid as some posters here make out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement, 25 Aug 2010 @ 9:04am
  
  Re:
  I wouldn't call it the most stupid business model ever conceived. It worked for Gillette.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 6:14am

In college, I bought a $30 printer. When I went to the store to buy more ink, I saw that I could get the same printer for cheaper than buying the ink that came with it. What did I do?

I bought a second printer, took the ink cartridges out of it, and returned it. The evil multinational corporation gave me a full refund. I got free ink. Win-win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pixelation, 25 Aug 2010 @ 7:26am
  
  Re:
  I think you are onto a new business model.
  
  1) Buy printer for less than ink price
  
  2) Buy new printer when needing new ink
  
  3) Remove ink to use and sell printer
  
  4) Profit!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 2:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That has the advantage of actually being ethical, in contrast with AC's plan which amounts to stealing ink from the store. Here's another one:
    
    1) Buy new printer for less than ink price (to be aboveboard, it has to have real ink cartridges, not lame starter ones)
    
    2) Remove and sell ink for just below market price
    
    3) Sell printer with no ink for some non-zero price
    
    4) Repeat
    
    The question is whether anybody sells a printer with a full-on ink cartridge included.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- econoline (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:24pm
  
  Re: college kid buys a printer because it is cheaper than the ink
  The ink cartridges that come with your printer generally come with far less ink than the replacement cartridge you buy at the store. This lets people startup without having to buy additional ink. Always buy the largest size supply you can get for your printer, they are a much better deal cost of ownership wise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anon retail worker, 5 Jun 2014 @ 9:10pm
  
  Re: Anonymous coward
  yeah you won and didn't screw over the company at ALL. You did however screw over the store you bought it from who now has to take on the loss of the printer you essentially stole. Well done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 6:24am

Ignoring the laughable business, uh, "model" that the printer manufacturers currently employ, I'd think it would be wiser to play up the benefits of using genuine ink rather than trying to use patents to try to bar third-party sales. Unlike many third-party OEM replacements, such as laptop batteries and such, there is a definite, tangible difference between a genuine ink cartridge and a third-party replacement -- the ink.

I had the pleasure of cleaning up after an administrative disaster after one of my previous employers decided to order a couple of boxes of cheap ink for their printers. We'd wind up with cartridges that were dead out of the box, would clog up in a day or two, and would leak. Aside from the obvious technical problems, the ink didn't adhere to the page well and would readily smudge even a couple of minutes after printing.

It wasn't just one brand. In their infinite wisdom, after one set of cartridges flopped they decided to do the same thing with a couple of different alternative brands. When those had the same problems, they finally went back to the IT department's original suggestion -- buy genuine HP ink. No problems after that.

Despite the horribly inflated cost, the original manufacturers' ink is typically the best stuff that you can get for a printer. It's foolish for the printer manufacturers not to take advantage of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
martin Hepworth, 25 Aug 2010 @ 6:31am

EU legislation
For once the billions we plough into the EU has made some good.

Over here the manufacturers have been told many years ago that this practice is anti-competitive and illegal and they've been fined as a result..

http://www.out-law.com/page-3234
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 25 Aug 2010 @ 6:51am

Ink
Perhaps a class action suit should be brought by everyone owning an HP or Lexmark printer! I am tired of being gouged by Lexmark for ink carts! TTBOMK, Kodak is the only company producing a printer that you pay for and ink is inexpensive. All the other mfgs gouge for ink in a very big way. This is price fixing! No other conclusion can be drawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 6:51am

this is a no brainer.

cheap printers expensive ink.
get a good printer (laser) and on the long run it will cost way less.

stopped buying ink jet in 2001 when my printer cost me $60, but 3 weeks i realized ink cartridges will cost me 90.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Landry (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 7:14am

How about someone making a printer where refilling the ink is a feature.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
techturf (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 7:29am

I would buy an expensive printer with really cheap ink any day
I have two Canon printers that can use generic cartridges. The cartridges cost a little over a dollar each when I buy 20. I paid $200 on ebay for the last printer, an open box and for a lot more than list, when they were discontinued since I love really cheap ink SOOOO much. When one of these breaks, I would not hesitate to pay $300 for a printer that used generic cartridges, or better yet, one with tanks that you could easily fill from big squirt bottles of ink. Since it does not look like this is going to happen with a US company any time soon, perhaps China will step up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 9:01am
  
  Re: I would buy an expensive printer with really cheap ink any day
  Kodak sells more expensive printers with cheap ink.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 7:34am

Reverse Engineering
Another sad implication of out-of-control "intellectual property" has been the apparent elimination of reverse engineering as a legitimate strategy to bring products (such as ink) to market.

Like others I am appalled by statements that companies, if they spend mega dollars, should somehow be entitled to gouge the consumer to "recover" their investment. The free-market system is based on competition. If a company can't make money too bad, you go out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 7:36am

I don't buy HP or Lexmark. I want value for my money. The Ink-Jet market is an incredible scam and every time I see someone buying a printer I tell them to look at the cost of the ink for that printer before making a decision. A $49 printer is a good deal until it costs you $80 every time you replace the ink. And you replace the ink a lot. I bought a used laserjet (the only good product from HP) and get 3000 pages per $25 refillable cartridge.
Remember the only good thing HP has done for us is to buy and bury Compaq. As a tech I rejoiced when it happened because they got rid of a crap proprietary computer that was a repair nightmare. As a tech I have thrown away many mainboards for HP computers. The only thing salvageable is the hard drive, DVD and the memory. The rest is garbage made in China by the enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OneNemesis, 25 Aug 2010 @ 8:22am

Razor Blades, Film Cameras
New wonderful 2 (er 3, er 4, er 5) blades in the cartridge!
old razor no good anymore. You must get a new one. By the way, new blades cost $10 ($12, $16, $22) now.

Film camera, low end, not too expensive. Film for camera $8; processing $20.

It's an old model; been around for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colg, 25 Aug 2010 @ 8:53am

I loved the Kodak model!

I ran out and bought one.
loved it.

It broke in 6 months.
I ran out and bought another one
Loved it.

It broke in 6 months.
Same problem.

I bought a $25 HP
I use knock off ink with no problems.
Still like the Kodak printers.
It's a shame they sucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- econoline (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:26pm
  
  Re: bought a kodak and it kept breaking
  yeah when we were trying to do competitive testing against the kodaks we had to buy a ton because they kept breaking on us too.
  
  ink insider
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colg, 25 Aug 2010 @ 8:54am

Also that those Kodak printers used a LOT of ink.
not sure why.
my HP sips it in comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I_am_so_smrt (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 9:04am

What's ink?
Pretty much all my output goes to my PC, Tablet or Smartphone.

Printing is truly a dying market, they'll probably sue us consumers for NOT printing anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: What's ink?
  No they won't sue consumers just buy a couple of politicians and make it a law that every document produced by or for a government agency must be printed.
  
  Old guy: What are you doing?
  New Hire: Just reading the email you sent out
  Old guy: but you haven't printed it yet
  New Hire: No need, I can read it just fine on the screen
  Old Guy: You have to print it first
  New Hire: why would I print it. That would just be a waste
  Old Guy: Didn't you read the handbook? Section 123 of the revised code states that all material must be printed before consumption. Don't let me catch you doing this again or I'll be forced to write you up.
  
  Somehow this seems way to close to a real possibility to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 2:52pm
    
    Re: Re: What's ink?
    Brilliant, that would save three different industries: printers, paper, and paper recycling.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What's ink?
      and here I was thinking small and only thinking about saving the paper and ink industries and forgetting all about how beneficial this could be to other industries. I'm sure we can get broad support for this bill as it will help printer manufacturing, paper recycling, lumber (we can add a requirement that government paper only be 50% recycled material), Service technicians, warehousing (gonna have to store all that printed material somewhere), trucking (to get it to the warehouse), custodial services (with all this extra paper getting tossed around I'm sure we'll need even more custodians to keep our halls of government clean), and we can even create a new agency to enforce this on all the state and local governments to ensure they don't try to cheat their obligations which will create thousands of new jobs all on its own. I'm really starting to get behind this idea now...I think it could help save our economy all on its own
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymoose, 25 Aug 2010 @ 10:20am

And this is why print is dyeing (heh heh)
...it's anti-consumer moves like this. My opinion of the companies that engage in these kinds of practices is low. I don't raise a fuss; I just don't use their products. Who actually prints things anymore anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 5:23pm

I must be missing something because so many comments here seem to be based on the assumption that the printer industry in the US lacks competition, thus allowing inflated prices for ancillary products like replacement ink.

Last time I looked there were a large number of companies selling consumer printers, each of which competes against the others for the attention of consumers.

Competition does seem to be alive and well, but it is just that consumers would prefer prices to hover around $0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 6:51pm
  
  Re:
  I'm not seeing that. I see people mentioning many printer makers by name and contrasting their various business models. I don't see anybody complaining that they can't get printers from anybody but HP or Lexmark.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 10:11pm
  
  Re:
  Last time I looked there were a large number of companies selling consumer printers, each of which competes against the others for the attention of consumers.
  
  You are defining the wrong market.
  
  In this case, we're defining the market for *ink* once you've bought a printer. And here is where it is not competitive. And that's the problem people see.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Save Money this Way, 25 Aug 2010 @ 7:40pm

If you print on 2 sides on 24 lb. paper using the lowest ink use setting (not Draft, but custom with fast settings), it does not bleed through and provides perfectly usable and legible documents. This saves paper, saves a lot of ink, and saves postage if you mail it. This has been my experience with Canon ink jet products and I get way more printed sheets per cartridge than the leading consumer magazine could ever imagine.

Cheaper yet is Brother laser products with refillable laser cartridges. There is an American ink company that sells toner to refill certain brother cartridges for $10 a bottle/fill. It is a little mess to do it, but you're saving big money over the Chinese made replacement cartridges that are $20-$40 a pop. Plus you're not dumping old cartridges into the landfill or shipping crap half way around the world, so it is better for the environment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron (profile), 26 Aug 2010 @ 10:28pm

http://12.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kubtk8AF9q1qzxzwwo1_500.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v 224/psycho_head_guy/image4477.jpg

It's really pathetic when a new printer (that comes with ink) is cheaper than replacement ink by itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cherry Hsu (profile), 28 Aug 2010 @ 2:17am

I support third-party printer supplies
I support third-party printer supplies
We are from the industry, by the industry, for the industry.
Hopefully we can suvive this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neal, 19 Oct 2010 @ 5:08pm

Patents for startups promotion will start on October 25, 2010:

http://www.pinskylaw.ca/News/patents_for_startups.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheila Lewis, 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:46am

INK
Just lower the prices of Ink and problem solved,I personally only switched to the crappy Kodak because ink was cheaper,I do not understand why Ink is so expensive,I will switch back to my Lexmark (yes I know there are probably better printers)When they make ink reasonable(it did work excellant compared to the kodak)Kodak's Ink is cheap but the printer is the worse i have ever used.All most of us really need is a printer that works descent and has affordable ink!Have they noticed the Economy is in the toilet..most can't afford Ink at all,especially outrageous Ink.Stop being greedy..It's always about the benjamins,Thats whats wrong with the world,Corporate greed! I have purchased refilled cartridges and was not mislead!Granted the refilled versions are not equal in quality but price is the biggest issue with most of us.Be fair and we will purchase your products..if not they're will always be a kodak or cartridge refiller!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 9:32am
  
  Re: INK
  I recently got a Brother inkjet for $90 that has performed quite well (printer/scanner/fax). I'm still on the starter ink catridges but I think the replacements are a lot cheaper than HP, and as far as I can tell they're not such dicks about trying to keep 3rd parties off the market.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dawnofjustice, 5 Apr 2016 @ 5:39am

Just reduced the costs of Ink and issue fixed,I individually only turned to the low top quality Kodak because ink was cheaper,I do not comprehend why Ink is so costly,I will change returning to my Lexmark (yes I know there are probably better printers)When they create ink reasonable(it did perform excellant in comparison to the kodak)Kodak's Ink is affordable but the printing device is the more intense i have ever used.All most of us really need is a printing device operates nice and has cost-effective ink!Have they observed the Economic system is in stained..most can't manage Ink at all,especially unbelievable Ink.Stop being selfish..It's always about the benjamins,Thats what is incorrect with the entire globe,Corporate greed! I have bought filled again refills and was not mislead!Granted the filled again editions are not equivalent in top quality but cost is the most important issue with most of us.Be cost-effective and we will buy product or service..if not they're will always be a kodak or container refiller!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jungle book, 5 Apr 2016 @ 5:47am

Right you're in the community, and I noticeable this informative article as crazy - not because I'm having a laugh with you, but having a laugh AT you.

I'm expected to have a pity party for HP or Lexmark now because their company structure of promoting inexpensive photo printers and dear ink isn't to their liking? What the heck did they expect?

I would HAPPILY pay a quality on new photo printers if I did not get jacked around on ink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]