PC Pro has a stunning story about how Epson has succeeded in blocking Recharge Inkjet Technologies Limited from offering Epson compatible ink cartridges:
Epson has succeeded in forcing Recharge to now only sell Epson original inks and multipacks and discontinue its Epson-compatible lines because of ‘concerns that they may infringe Epson’s intellectual property rights,’ according to Mr Scott, director of Recharge.
Commenters are unanimous in their condemnation of Epson’s iron fist approach though one came up with a novel suggestion (see illustration.)
I don’t print stuff out and haven’t done ever since my Lexmark X73 ran out (about a year ago.) I refuse to be held to ransom by the printer makers for ink cartridge replacement and in any event I’m fortunate enough to not need printed matter – at least 95% of the time. If I need something printed then I’d rather go to my local Internet cafe with a USB stick and ask for a copy. I realise that not everyone can do this and that there are plenty of occasions when people need printed material.
What I didn’t know until I read comments is that it is standard practice for printer makers to ship product with half-full cartridges so you’re forced into re-buying earlier than you might imagine. Apart from the fact this is really lame, the printer makers don’t do themselves any favours. When the Lexmark ran out I remember thinking: “That didn’t last long – I wonder why?” Now I know.
To the more fundamental issue of commodity, printer prices have now reached a point which is unsustainable for companies that need to make profit. Reminds me of the motor trade and spare parts. But I don’t see GM, Ford and the others suing pattern part manufacturers.
In blocking compatible cartridge production, they’re effectively enforcing lock-in. Who wants that? Might be worth thinking about next time you’re advising clients on this type of purchase.
Inspired by Stuart Bruce
Technorati Tags: ethics
