HP Launched Delayed DRM Time Bomb To Disable Competing Printer Cartridges
from the innovation! dept
For decades now, consumers have been lured into a sour deal: pay for a relatively inexpensive printer, then spend a lifetime paying an arm and a leg for viciously overpriced printer cartridges. As most have learned first-hand, any attempt to disrupt this obnoxious paradigm via third-party printer cartridges has been met with a swift DRM roundhouse kick to the solar plexus. In fact if there's an area where the printer industry actually innovates, it's most frequently in finding new, creative and obnoxious methods of preventing cartridge competition.Hoping to bring this parade of awfulness to its customers at scale, HP this week unearthed the atomic bomb of printer cartridge shenanigans. HP Printer owners collectively discovered on September 13 that their printers would no longer even accept budget cartridges. Why? A firmware update pushed by the company effectively prevented HP printers from even detecting alternative cartridges, resulting in HP printer owners getting messages about a "cartridge problem," or errors stating "one or more cartridges are missing or damaged," or that the user was using an "older generation cartridge."
As Cory Doctorow over at Boing Boing notes, this behavior is simply par for the course, with Lexmark engaging in similar behavior back in 2003. By embedding an "I am empty" bit in their cartridges, they were similarly able to ensure that users couldn't use third-party cartridges or they'd be told the cartridge lacked ink. Lexmark leaned heavily on Section 1201 of the DMCA to support its behavior, a tactic HP is likely to mirror but evolve:
"Lexmark invoked Section 1201 of the DMCA, which makes it a criminal and civil offense to bypass an "effective means of access control" for a copyrighted work. The DC Circuit court asked Lexmark which copyrighted work was being protected by its access control, and it argued that the checking routine itself was copyrighted, as well as the "Empty" bit. The court found that the DMCA could only be invoked where there was a copyrighted work apart from the access control, and that a single bit didn't qualify as a copyrightable work. Lexmark lost."In this case, HP's DRM time bomb firmware update was apparently deployed back in March, but HP didn't activate the "improvement" until this month. And as is usually the case in this space, HP isn't saying much outside of a misleading quote proclaiming the company was simply protecting its "innovations" and intellectual property:
"HP said such updates were rolled out "periodically" but did not comment on the timing of the last instalment.But rejoice! HP claims that users can still refill cartridges, as long as those cartridges contain an HP-approved security chip:
"The purpose of this update is to protect HP's innovations and intellectual property," it said in a statement."
"These printers will continue to work with refilled or remanufactured cartridges with an original HP security chip. Other cartridges may not function."Well, at least until HP figures out a way to DRM the printer fluid itself, which surely can't be too far along on the horizon.
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: copyright, dmca, drm, printer cartridges
Companies: hp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm heading to the basement...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm heading to the basement...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm heading to the basement...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But the plans were on display..
It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: (Can't leave out the best part!)
~~ The light had gone
So had the stairs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's this thing in contract law called a 'materially adverse change' -- basically, the idea goes that if the contract you are bound to is changed in a way that would have caused you to have rejected the product entirely if that contract term had been part of the deal when you signed the contract, then it forms an escape clause for the contract.
Normally, this applies to escaping from contracts without an Early Termination Fee, but in this case we're talking about an ongoing licensing contract for a physical product, so it might be possible to return the printer for a refund due to this DRM stunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
At a guess, they've covered themselves for this eventuality, but we'll probably not know until there's a class action suit to test it out. One of the problems with this kind of thing is that companies are happy to screw over their own customers with DRM until they fight back decisively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank the Supreme court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thank the Supreme court
The decision was basically the dismantling of the Sherman Antitrust act forbidding illegal tie-in...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Tool_Works_Inc._v._Independent_Ink,_Inc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right after buying Samsung
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right after buying Samsung
Oh, Brother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ready to sign on for a class action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ready to sign on for a class action
- HP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Brother Laser Printer I have now, there's ZERO copy protection. There's no chip. There's a mechanical dial on the toner cartridge on the normal FULL ones. The Trial one that comes with the printer doesn't have it. But going aftermarket, you can get a cheap kit and turn that Trail toner unit into a full unit by swapping a few parts. This is also how you reset it, buy resetting the dial. Pull the plug, dump out any old toner that's left, and fill it up with the new aftermarket toner. It's toner designed for that Laser. It's simple to pop the plug and fill up, reset and away you go. Also since the Toner and the drum are 2 pieces that snap together, it's much cheaper in you have to replace one or the other at some point. It's not a whole big all in one unit.
The thing warms up fast and is printing away perfectly. It can sit for days on end and the first sheet that comes out is perfect. Color I can live without. If I want to print out some color photo's, I can just go to Costco online, and sent my pictures there to be printed out and then go pick them up locally all done and I think with better results and flexibility.
A Laser is really the only way to go these days. They're cheap enough now and not having to deal with Ink cartridges and head cleaning and always swapping cartridges makes it well worth it. Most of them also have CHIPS!!! So now you're having to get something to reset those. I'm glad I don't have to deal with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Epson sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By far, it is the best deskjet I've ever owned. If you want a good printer, I'd recommend to anyone 'go with Canon first', with the Pixma models being a great choice. I forgot about HP the moment I realized years ago that they're buying their ink for $40 a 55-gallon barrel, and selling it for over $9,000 for the same quantity, while making consumers jump through hoops to purchase their 'rip off profit line'. It's one thing to compete, it's another thing to commit strong-arm-robbery and try to legally sanction it with monopolistic actions hidden beneath DMCA or any other law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't HP have a right to protect its customers?
If customers had a choice, they would incur the effort to make a choice of which vendor's ink to purchase. HP is trying saving customers from a competitive market to keep things simple.
You will buy only our ink, and you will pay whatever outrageous price we tell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't HP have a right to protect its customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So I bought a printer/scanner for $30. Of course they expected my to buy new cartridges to replace the partially-filled ones that come with the printer. And a $30 USB cable (available elsewhere for $2.) And an extended warranty. I passed on all three. I got a perfectly good flatbed scanner for $30.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some years ago we bought a Brother All-in-one Printer/Scanner/Fax but when the print cartridge was empty NONE of the buttons or other functions worked. I didn't find any way to defeat it. After that we have never purchased another Brother device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Right now I have an Epson 7520 MFC (since 2012) that is the best Fax I have ever had. Just a shame it takes up so much space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I won't go from color laser back to inkjet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, of course the supplied cartridge wasn't a full cartridge, but I needed to print so infrequently the nearly empty cartridge usually had dried ink over the nozzles. I stopped doing this when I had a decent enough job that I could get away with printing from work, and it's been many years since I've had a printer at home (or even a scanner, I use my phone for that nowadays).
But, I can't help but wonder how much in the way of money & resources Lexmark wasted by me doing that compared to if they had merely priced the ink cartridges lower. I obviously wouldn't have bothered with the new printers if the cartridges were, say, £10-15.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Printer companies vs. their customers
His recommendation: Use your firewall to prevent your printers from sending or receiving traffic to the internet outside of your LAN. Implementing this would also prevent manufacturers from remotely installing firmware "upgrades" that would remove your ability to use 3rd party cartridges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Printer companies vs. their customers
2) whine about pirates
3) steal customer documents
4) ?????
5) profit !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Printer companies vs. their customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd like to see HP's bottom line take a hit over this, but I don't know how likely that actually is.
What I'm describing is something else, something that I anticipate becoming a growing problem in the coming years: publishers pushing software "updates" -- some even labeled as "security updates" -- that adversely impact their product's functionality. It's already common in consoles and phones, of course, where security vulnerabilities are frequently exploited for purposes of rooting, jailbreaking, etc. But it's starting to creep its way into desktops and peripherals.
This is a problem. Because when end users stop trusting security updates, legitimate security vulnerabilities are going to go unpatched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HP printers have not not and will never be in this household, not even delivered by vestal virgins and a pallet of free cartridges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No it won't. It just means that instead of explaining to customers that the cheap brand they bought is shoddy, you now have to explain to them that HP deliberately stopped them from using a cheaper product. You'll still get the abuse, and you'll probably get more work incoming from people who've tried to "fix" the product themselves using whatever random outdated hints they found online. People will still try to save the $50 purchase, and you'll get the brunt of it when they fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesson learned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crossover
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crossover
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
After dealing with such nonsense for years, I vowed to simply never buy another printer. Period. I refuse to devote more time and money to these scumbags. For my printing needs, it's easier (and way cheaper in the long run) to carry a thumb drive over to the local copy shop. Could not be happier with my decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.office.xerox.com/solid-ink/solid-ink-printers/enus.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful, that's one four letter word you shouldn't use in the US. Especially if you're anywhere near an airport!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh... who needs color printers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So nanobots will finally have a use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 'PC' side is being shut down. The printer business has long been farmed out to others and that too is being terminated in February (though support will continue for some printers through to 2020).
HP has debts of over $35 billion and no way to pay it back (percentage of users with printers shrinks year on year).
Why would ANYONE want to buy a printer where if HP suddenly and spectacularly collapses, even the 'end of life to 2020' support disappears along with DRM cartridge manufactuer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Got a reference for that? Why would they buy Samsung's printer division and then shut the whole thing down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gouging or quality control?
Suppose this issue happened in other industries: say you bought a BMW and the battery dies. You go to your local auto supply store and see a Ford battery for $50, which the clerk assures you that it's compatible with your BMW. Congratulations! You just saved money by not buying the official battery from the BMW dealership for $200. We all know how car dealerships like to gouge people, especially the higher-end ones like BMW!
Except the battery from the supply store doesn't quite fit, so you have to hammer it in place... then it runs out of a charge after 3 months. Then you complain to BMW that they made a crappy car that won't take Ford batteries.
So for argument's sake, let's assume this happened to HP: customers would use cheap-brand ink, the printer would fail, and then they'd complain to HP or return the printer to the store (in which case, the store would return it to HP). The printer works perfectly, except for the fact that the nozzles can't handle the cheap quality ink.
And here's another example: I have a LEGO set and I have a knock-off-brand set of bricks. The LEGO set was $24.95, which seemed a tad expensive for the content. The knock-off brand was $9.95 for a larger set with more pieces.
However, after building each set, I noticed the LEGO bricks are "stickier", firmer, and seem to hold together better. The knock-off brand bricks seems looser, as if they didn't quite get the measurements right or they used poorer-quality plastic.
Most of the time, a cheaper price usually means a cheaper quality product.
So is this really a case of HP trying to gouge everyone or are they trying to maintain quality control?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gouging or quality control?
Then, you're politely either informed that you've invalidated your warranty by being an idiot and taking a hammer to the car or told that since they only guarantee their own parts, they should either take it back to the guy who told them it would fit or pay a premium for a proper repair and battery.
This isn't something new, it happens all the time.
"So is this really a case of HP trying to gouge everyone or are they trying to maintain quality control?"
Irrelevant distraction. In a free market, the consumer can decide what they buy, what they use and how to use it. HP are attempting a monopoly lock-in, where they decide all of those things.
QC is important, but it's ultimately just an excuse. Yes, LEGO and knock-offs differ in quality, but it's the customer's choice. The difference can even help, as since customers like yourself notice the difference clearly, they choose to pay the premium next time. But it's their choice.
Like all manufacturers, HP will always get complaints for things that aren't their fault. The customer can't work out how to install or use it properly, they use crappy paper that gets stuck more often, they complain because it's somehow not their fault the cable got unplugged or it got knocked off a table, etc. They swallow that as part of their operating costs, as they should.
What they should not get to do is force everybody to only have themselves as the choice. If I want to use cheap knock-off ink and take the risk, I should have that choice. Not be forced to pay a company a premium for overpriced product just because they deemed it right that I have no other option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]