Goodbye 3rd party inks

[scho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If George Bush signs off on this ruling (he is expected to do so), then it appears that there will no longer be any 3rd party inks, cartridges, or CIS systems available in the USA for small format printers.

http://itc.epson.com/index.html

[johnastovall]

"...infringe one or more of eleven Epson patents." Strikes as a clear case of protecting intellectual property. Would you want people stealing your intellectual property?

 

What if these were your photos?

[scho]

"...infringe one or more of eleven Epson patents." Strikes as a clear case of protecting intellectual property. Would you want people stealing your intellectual property?

 

What if these were your photos?

 

Strikes me as a clear case of corporate greed and an attempt to completely stifle competition. I want to be able to use the inks I choose for my prints, not what Epson tells me I must use. I like to use custom archival carbon inks (eg. Piezotones or MIS Eboni) for B&W printing. Under this ruling this would no longer be possible with small format printers using 3rd party cartridges.

[spylaw4]

Only applies to Epson? There are alternatives!

[scho]

Only applies to Epson? There are alternatives!

 

HP follows the same corporate model (they also have law suits pending) as does Canon.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/88372

[marknorton]

Your only hope is that Dub-ya doesn't know what print cartridges are and doesn't understand when someone tells him...

[cocker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Your only hope is that Dub-ya doesn't know what print cartridges are and doesn't understand when someone tells him...

 

Maybe Mark - but look where his stupidity has got the world so far

[adan]

The companies mentioned on the Epson web site seem to be Pacific Rim or South Asian companies making regular color ink cartidge knock-offs of Epson's standard 4-6-8-ink color catridges. I don't see the Piezotone-type extended monochrome inks mentioned anywhere in Epson's documents.

 

The ruling refers to cartridges - how does that apply to CIS systems (which are bottles and tubes)?

 

Have Cone and the other speciality B&W manufacturers commented on the ruling anywhere?

 

Purely as a rhetorical question, since I don't want to invade anyone's privacy: those of you complaining do not derive ANY income from protected intellectual property (either your own creations, or those of your employer(s))? Or have any investments the value of which is based in some way on patents, copyrights, etc.?

[earleygallery]

Yes it seems to be the actual cartridge rather than the ink they are trying to protect - after all the cartridge will be their own design whereas ink is ink.

 

I think they'd find it very hard to stop individuals buying 'fake' cartridges via e bay.

[Guest Motivfindender]

the game they play has NOTHING to do with intellectual property, it is the wish to force everyone to buy their ink and avoid the competition of the free market.

 

They sold a printer and nobody did sign a contract that he will never use others than their inks, did someone?

 

They want just to sell their ink for prohibitive prices with some 10.000 percent profit although nobody wants to buy it.

 

It' s like selling a car with a chip somewhere in the electronic motormanagement, which allows only to buy fuel from one single party for about 250 USD per gallon.

 

It is just a carricature of the system of free markets. Monopolism at its worst.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Dirk

[scho]

The companies mentioned on the Epson web site seem to be Pacific Rim or South Asian companies making regular color ink cartidge knock-offs of Epson's standard 4-6-8-ink color catridges. I don't see the Piezotone-type extended monochrome inks mentioned anywhere in Epson's documents.

 

The ruling refers to cartridges - how does that apply to CIS systems (which are bottles and tubes)?

 

Have Cone and the other speciality B&W manufacturers commented on the ruling anywhere?

 

Purely as a rhetorical question, since I don't want to invade anyone's privacy: those of you complaining do not derive ANY income from protected intellectual property (either your own creations, or those of your employer(s))? Or have any investments the value of which is based in some way on patents, copyrights, etc.?

 

Yes, there are several long threads going about this issue in the various printing forums, including Cone's Piezography forum. Here is a link to Jon Cone's first post concerning this issue. He and many others are very concerned.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/message/28031

[wparsonsgisnet]

I have tried alternatives to Epson's inks and wasted a lot of time and money, expecially with print head clogging and having to replace a printer. This last item cost me more than any savings from months and months of alternative ink usage.

 

While I was doing all this, of course, Epson moved along 2 steps in their own ink process. If I had stayed with the Epson ink, upgraded my printers and sold the old ones, I'd have saved money, gotten to inks with betrter archival properties sooner, and saved ALL KINDS of TIME. This last item is the most valuable.

 

It's nice to be Rebels with a Cause, but Epson deserves their fair return. Their research has improved their inks many-fold over the past few years. The inks have better gamut, are more archival, and continue to improve over time.

 

I remember when I got the 1200 and some guy posted that the ink cost about $860 a gallon. The cost to be viewed is the cost per print. Since I started printing digitally, my 8x10s have cost less than $2 (including paper). Why the hell would you complain at this level?

 

Now, economics says that competition keeps prices fair. If we can't beat Epson up with substitute cartridges, we'll just have to depend upon HP and Canon to keep them honest.

 

Currently, I am using a 2400 with Epson's archival inks and also spent the money for Image Print ($500 for this item!). I am in the very nice position of saving money because the FIRST print every time looks just like what's on the screen. Settling on this RIP (IP) and standard inks gives me dependability, repeatability, and cost savings from not having to make a lot of test prints.

 

We need to make pictures in the little time we have.

[scho]

I have tried alternatives to Epson's inks and wasted a lot of time and money, expecially with print head clogging and having to replace a printer. This last item cost me more than any savings from months and months of alternative ink usage.

 

While I was doing all this, of course, Epson moved along 2 steps in their own ink process. If I had stayed with the Epson ink, upgraded my printers and sold the old ones, I'd have saved money, gotten to inks with betrter archival properties sooner, and saved ALL KINDS of TIME. This last item is the most valuable.

 

It's nice to be Rebels with a Cause, but Epson deserves their fair return. Their research has improved their inks many-fold over the past few years. The inks have better gamut, are more archival, and continue to improve over time.

 

I remember when I got the 1200 and some guy posted that the ink cost about $860 a gallon. The cost to be viewed is the cost per print. Since I started printing digitally, my 8x10s have cost less than $2 (including paper). Why the hell would you complain at this level?

 

Now, economics says that competition keeps prices fair. If we can't beat Epson up with substitute cartridges, we'll just have to depend upon HP and Canon to keep them honest.

 

Currently, I am using a 2400 with Epson's archival inks and also spent the money for Image Print ($500 for this item!). I am in the very nice position of saving money because the FIRST print every time looks just like what's on the screen. Settling on this RIP (IP) and standard inks gives me dependability, repeatability, and cost savings from not having to make a lot of test prints.

 

We need to make pictures in the little time we have.

 

Well there are many like you who are perfectly content to use Epson's color inks and a RIP like IP with canned profiles to make both color and B&W prints. If you are happy with that approach that is fine, but I prefer to have more control over the printing process than what IP/Epson offer and there are many others who feel the same. I don't think you can depend on HP or Canon to keep Epson honest, but Kodak might make things interesting in the future. Here is just one example posted by Paul Roark in the Digital B&W Yahoo Printing forum:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/88389

Quote:

"By the way, Epson has filed a second lawsuit going after the large format

cartridges.

 

And has anyone figured out how to refill 3800 carts yet?

 

They really are intent on wiping out the third party ink industry.

 

I wonder if a secondary competitor like Kodak might exploit the big-three's

efforts by making a machine that readily accepts competitive inks.

 

Note http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20298724/ :

 

"Analysts have been concerned about a potential slowdown in HP's ...

high-margin inkjet cartridges that have been long been the company's cash

cow. They have worried that Eastman Kodak Co.'s foray this year into the

inkjet-printer market with lower-priced products could harm HP's

profitability."

 

"But HP delivered a strong showing in the third quarter. Operating profit

for the division rose 11 percent from $884 million to $981 million. The unit

provided HP with nearly 40 percent of the company's total operating profit."

 

 

I think the extent of profitability of the ink sales helps support the

argument that the old prohibitions on tying were based on solid facts.

Regardless of the Chicago school theory, most people do not carefully

analyze total product costs when purchasing. The low down payment suckers

lots of people. (Has anyone noticed the housing market?)

 

Mention of HP's inkjet profitability in letters might help persuade some

that "perfect competition" is not happening here.

 

 

On the other side of the coin, Kodak's behavior is more consistent with what

economists would predict.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com"

[wparsonsgisnet]

... I wonder if a secondary competitor like Kodak might exploit the big-three's

efforts by making a machine that readily accepts competitive inks.QUOTE]

 

Paul, If Kodak were to make a machine that is "open-inked" that would be a good thing for the industry. Maybe epson would even make cartridges for it.... The returns on sale of ink are large by any definition. Also, the quality of the 2400 printer I just bot is seriously below that of the 2200 I replaced.

 

I understand that you and others and perhaps even I at some point would like to use different inks in an Epson or other printer. That doesn't change the law on intellectual property. That we have all gotten away with it is just luck.

 

I got a phone call from the bride yesterday complaining that she got a ticket even tho she came out to feed the meter. The ticket specifically said the owner could not use the meter past the 2-hour allotted time. I said, yup, you've gotten away with it for years, but that's the way the law is written and the cops have just decided to chalk your tires.

 

This event from Epson is clearly not good news, but they're entitled.

[AlanJW]

the game they play has NOTHING to do with intellectual property, it is the wish to force everyone to buy their ink and avoid the competition of the free market.

 

They sold a printer and nobody did sign a contract that he will never use others than their inks, did someone?

 

They want just to sell their ink for prohibitive prices with some 10.000 percent profit although nobody wants to buy it.

 

It' s like selling a car with a chip somewhere in the electronic motormanagement, which allows only to buy fuel from one single party for about 250 USD per gallon.

 

It is just a carricature of the system of free markets. Monopolism at its worst.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Dirk

My 2 cents is different. They heavily invest in technology, make inventions, and have a right to profit from it so they can invest in the next generation. You may not agree with their business model or like it but you have a right not to buy their printers. Having tried some 3d party cartridges by the way, I found (i) the pigment quality is not the same; (ii) there is a higher incidence of DOA cartridges; and (iii) they do not last as long. I think Consumer Reports recently ran an article about third party ink cartridges and came to the conclusion that the savings were slim. So it seems to me the business model of the third party sellers is not exactly altruistic either.

[adan]

Carl: thanks for the expanded information

 

While the chipped-car analogy is extreme, it is fair - and would be perfectly legal, so far as I know. Likely not many cars would be sold, though.

 

Hasselblad has "chipped", more or less, their H3 camera so that it cannot be used with a digital back other than theirs.

 

If Leica wanted to spend the time and money, they probably could block 3rd-party use of their 6-bit coding system and patterns. But since that really only amounts to John M. and his machine shop at this point, I'm sure they won't bother. If Zeiss and Cosina actually began selling coded lenses, that might change. Then again, it might not - Leica could decide that irritating customers was not a good idea.

 

I doubt that Epson feels threatened by the 1% niche "art" inkmakers - they're going after the 99% consumer-market CMYK ink, which definitely is a cash cow, as the HP comments note.

 

Unfortunately, the law doesn't make a distinction between one kind of ink and another, so Cone et al. get thrown out with the bathwater.

 

Seems like a letter-writing campaign to Epson is in order - there is such a thing as "licensing", and Epson could easily grant a license to the speciality ink makers for a nominal fee. Someone should joggle Mike Reichman's elbow over at luminous-landscape and get him to write a commentary.

 

I guess my take on such situations is: if it's illegal, take Epson to court. If you lose, then it's legal. If it's legal, then change the law - or change Epson's attitude.

 

But it's action that counts - "outrage" just makes me yawnnn... As the Kennedy family mantra goes, "Don't get mad - get even!"

 

[Edit: I tried the link to Yahoo - but Yahoo wants me to register and give them a bunch of personal information just to read Cone's post...talk about "proprietary! I'll avoid Yahoo, thanks - and anyone who wants to is free to avoid Epson printers]

[scho]

Andy,

 

Tyler Boley posted Jon Cone's statement over in the LLS printing discussion forum:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20648

[adan]

Thanks Carl - and I appreciate your original post as a 'heads-up'

 

[Edit: OK - good read.

 

But...to some extent John Cone has been riding Epson's coattails. He bottles ink (which has been around for - what? - 5000 years?) and writes software/drivers (which is not covered by the ruling) - but he doesn't build and test printheads or precision-aligned paperhandling mechanisms or any of the other technology that goes into the physical printer box itself.

 

So it could be argued that if he REALLY wants to compete (and thinks he has a better product) he should build HIS own printers to put HIS ink into.

 

Or buy printers that he finds suitable from a printer maker and rebrand them as "Cone Edition Superior Monochrome whatever" printers - at which point he might suddenly be a little more interested in proprietary protections against other makers' ink...

 

Or he might just enter a licensing agreement with Epson - maybe selling "John Cone Special Edition" Epson printers with his inks included, along with order forms for more inks. And even get to use Epson's marketing and service structures.

 

Anyway - just some ideas from a libertarian for whom "corporate greed" is hardly a curse word, just a tautology.