Epson wins lawsuits...sad day for consumers all around the world

[mugs]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Tom
There seem to be two opinions being blended together in this thread.

One is that Epson's profit model for printers, making money primarily with cartridges, sucks. That I agree with.

The other is, that the court is supposed to decide cases based on what is best for us, consumers. That isn't the job of the court, the court bases decisions on the law, and chances are Epson has the legal right to prevent infringement on it's patents and copyrights.

So unless someone has a legal reason to oppose the court decision, I can't agree with blaming the court.

:thumbsup:

And the paper analogy in the link in the OP and repeated by people in this thread is invalid for a reason that should be painfully obvious. Logic ftw.

I'm glad you feel that way. I'm coming over to put a lock on your gas cap that will allow you to only buy your gasoline from me at $10 per gallon.

PS: Courts rule in favor of consumers all the time if they want to.

Well, with analogies like that I can't believe I didn't see it your way before. :Q

PS: Courts rule based on the law, not based on which side they like better. If a court rules in favor of the consumer, it's because the law favored the consumer. And vice versa.

 

[JS80]

color laser FTW?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Tom
There seem to be two opinions being blended together in this thread.

One is that Epson's profit model for printers, making money primarily with cartridges, sucks. That I agree with.

The other is, that the court is supposed to decide cases based on what is best for us, consumers. That isn't the job of the court, the court bases decisions on the law, and chances are Epson has the legal right to prevent infringement on it's patents and copyrights.

So unless someone has a legal reason to oppose the court decision, I can't agree with blaming the court.

:thumbsup:

And the paper analogy in the link in the OP and repeated by people in this thread is invalid for a reason that should be painfully obvious. Logic ftw.

I'm glad you feel that way. I'm coming over to put a lock on your gas cap that will allow you to only buy your gasoline from me at $10 per gallon.

PS: Courts rule in favor of consumers all the time if they want to.

Well, with analogies like that I can't believe I didn't see it your way before. :Q

PS: Courts rule based on the law, not based on which side they like better. If a court rules in favor of the consumer, it's because the law favored the consumer. And vice versa.

so where's the law that makes abortion a "right"?

courts can do watever they want and we can't do anything about it.

 

[foghorn67]

This reflects poorly on their reputation, which wasn't great to begin with. Just becuase it's legal, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Tom
There seem to be two opinions being blended together in this thread.

One is that Epson's profit model for printers, making money primarily with cartridges, sucks. That I agree with.

The other is, that the court is supposed to decide cases based on what is best for us, consumers. That isn't the job of the court, the court bases decisions on the law, and chances are Epson has the legal right to prevent infringement on it's patents and copyrights.

So unless someone has a legal reason to oppose the court decision, I can't agree with blaming the court.

:thumbsup:

And the paper analogy in the link in the OP and repeated by people in this thread is invalid for a reason that should be painfully obvious. Logic ftw.

I'm glad you feel that way. I'm coming over to put a lock on your gas cap that will allow you to only buy your gasoline from me at $10 per gallon.

PS: Courts rule in favor of consumers all the time if they want to.

Well, with analogies like that I can't believe I didn't see it your way before. :Q

PS: Courts rule based on the law, not based on which side they like better. If a court rules in favor of the consumer, it's because the law favored the consumer. And vice versa.

Allowing Printer manufacters to put digital padlocks on ink carts is anti-consumer and probably violates some law that is already on the books that the Court is not enforcing.

I can't imagine where it is written that you can only use Epson ink in a Epson printer, somebody show me where that law is written ?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: JS80
so where's the law that makes abortion a "right"?

courts can do watever they want and we can't do anything about it.

Post this in P&N where it belongs and I'm sure you'll get your answer. I'm not going to give it to you here, because you're just trolling.

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
I can't imagine where it is written that you can only use Epson ink in a Epson printer, somebody show me where that law is written ?

Patent law is what protects Epson apparantly. You might see things differently if you were on the other side of the ball - if you created something that everyone wants, but is easy to duplicate. Patents allow companies to get a return on all of the money they invest in research and development. See: prescription drugs.

It does suck for consumers, and I'm glad I don't have an Epson printer. On the upside, since most printer manufacturers are selling their printers dirt cheap nowadays, it's not difficult to move away from Epson.

Edit: All I'm saying is if you're going to criticize someone, criticize Epson, not the court.

 

[iamaelephant]

Meh, looks like it only affects America.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: moshquerade
Never ever ever buy Epson, and this just reinforces it. Epson cartridges will say empty, which disallows you from printing at all, when they really aren't empty yet. This forces you to buy more of their overpriced cartridges just so you can get the damn printer to work.

OP's article again shows the shady company Epson really is, and the court has enabled them to carry on with a monopoly of which they are making a mint at the expense of people who have their crappy printers.

Like one person said, next "will they file a lawsuit against paper makers as well and try to get a law passed that only Epson Paper can be used in an Epson printer?"
:|

What monopoly? Plenty of other printers on the market.

monopoly in that you have to buy ink from Epson only for Epson printers.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Epson printers suck anyway.

My R2400 and I disagree

 

[Ulfwald]

One more reason to not buy epson

 

[40Hands]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
just stop printing

paper is soooo 90's anyway

:thumbsup:

I rarely ever print anything anymore. I don't even own a printer...

 

[Oceanas]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Who needs a dictatorship when the courts have no common sense.

The problem with this statement and many others in this thread, is that nowhere in that article does it mention an actual court ruling resulting from a trial. 8 companies settled, 8 received a default judgment against them for not responding (which is the way it works and not the fault of the court at all), and the other cases have yet to be heard. Other then the default judgment, which the court must grant if there is no response, there have been no judgments by the court in this case.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Tom
There seem to be two opinions being blended together in this thread.

One is that Epson's profit model for printers, making money primarily with cartridges, sucks. That I agree with.

The other is, that the court is supposed to decide cases based on what is best for us, consumers. That isn't the job of the court, the court bases decisions on the law, and chances are Epson has the legal right to prevent infringement on it's patents and copyrights.

So unless someone has a legal reason to oppose the court decision, I can't agree with blaming the court.

Does it appear to you that settling out of court and default judgments go to show that those companies fear they will lose against Epson if it went to trial?

The fact that Epson filed this complaint against 24 companies who sold ink compatible with their printers isn't winning them any fans.

 

[BoomerD]

I'd expect that since Epson won this, you can expect to see other similar suits by the other printer manufacturers. Can't really blame them, (like it or not) since replacment ink cartridges make up a significant part of their revenues, and is how/why they can sell the printers so cheaply...

 

[Oceanas]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
Does it appear to you that settling out of court and default judgments go to show that those companies fear they will lose against Epson if it went to trial?

Perhaps fear or perhaps money. In any case, what does fear or any other reason matter in this regard? They may fear that they will lose, but that does not mean that they will.

Originally posted by: moshquerade
The fact that Epson filed this complaint against 24 companies who sold ink compatible with their printers isn't winning them any fans.

They are not the first company, and will not be the last, that do things that do not end up being popular among consumers. But then again, consumers are quite fickle. They will often end up not so happy even when a company exerts a clear-cut legal right. (Although I would not inject that argument into this particular case)

 

[Raduque]

I don't really care for cheap printers with expensive ink - I'd rather it the other way around.

Also, I haven't used Epson since about 2000, and so this is definitely a reason to not consider them next time I decide to buy a printer.

 

[mrrman]

thats not good...I only buy Epson because I can get cheap inks....will just have to wait and see

 

[AndrewR]

Who cares? I have a laser to print my documents and a Canon to print occasional color prints. For photos, I use Adorama, Shutterfly, or one of the others. Adorama has $1.99 11x14 prints right now -- beat that with an Epson!

I do wish I could afford the pro Epson printers -- those are beautiful, though you pay dearly for the privilege.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Tom
There seem to be two opinions being blended together in this thread.

One is that Epson's profit model for printers, making money primarily with cartridges, sucks. That I agree with.

The other is, that the court is supposed to decide cases based on what is best for us, consumers. That isn't the job of the court, the court bases decisions on the law, and chances are Epson has the legal right to prevent infringement on it's patents and copyrights.

So unless someone has a legal reason to oppose the court decision, I can't agree with blaming the court.

Does it appear to you that settling out of court and default judgments go to show that those companies fear they will lose against Epson if it went to trial?

The fact that Epson filed this complaint against 24 companies who sold ink compatible with their printers isn't winning them any fans.

I don't know why the companies settled, could be what you said, or just that it would cost more than it's worth to them to go to court.

I don't like epson's tactics. I thought they lost a class action lawsuit about the chips in the cartridges that disabled them even if they still had ink in them ?

My personal problem with my epson printers is they are always getting clogged. Maybe their design doesn't work well for infrequent use, which is how I use printers.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Tom
There seem to be two opinions being blended together in this thread.

One is that Epson's profit model for printers, making money primarily with cartridges, sucks. That I agree with.

The other is, that the court is supposed to decide cases based on what is best for us, consumers. That isn't the job of the court, the court bases decisions on the law, and chances are Epson has the legal right to prevent infringement on it's patents and copyrights.

So unless someone has a legal reason to oppose the court decision, I can't agree with blaming the court.

Does it appear to you that settling out of court and default judgments go to show that those companies fear they will lose against Epson if it went to trial?

The fact that Epson filed this complaint against 24 companies who sold ink compatible with their printers isn't winning them any fans.

I don't know why the companies settled, could be what you said, or just that it would cost more than it's worth to them to go to court.

I don't like epson's tactics. I thought they lost a class action lawsuit about the chips in the cartridges that disabled them even if they still had ink in them ?

My personal problem with my epson printers is they are always getting clogged. Maybe their design doesn't work well for infrequent use, which is how I use printers.

They did lose a class action suit over 3/4 empty ink cartridges disabling the printer. It was downright deceit aimed at the consumer for their profit.
Did you sign up to receive the settlement? http://www.epsonsettlement.com/Claim.htm

Because it's "class action" it's not much, but you get $45 to spend in their Epson Store or $20 cash and $25 to spend in their store. When we'll actually see it though is another question.

EPSON SUCKS. I don't care who wants to say they've had luck with them. I also have owned a printer of theirs that gets clogged frequently and is disabled when just one of the four ink cartridges is low... not empty, but low.

 

[Kaido]

I love my R220. I buy all my inks from Swift Inks now. $50 gets me a full set plus a spare black and free shipping

 

[Kelemvor]

IF you're that upset about it, just stop buying Epson. Just because of this law doesn't mean you won't be able to get ink. You'll just have to search for it a bit harder.

But I think the law is stupid. It's no different than buying an aftermarket part for anything when the original manufacturer also makes one.

Imaging if you couldn't buy a K&N Air Filter and had to buy the GM one or something stupid like that. This is the same thing. Hopefully there will be an appeal and Epson will get slapped.

 

[rh71]

This was brilliant... an idea to keep people away from buying their printers in the first place.

 

[Amused]

The court was right on here. Epson patented their ink cartridges. Anyone who copies that is in violation of patent law. It's quite simple, really.

Air filters do not apply. Why? Because they are NOT an exact copy of the original as the ink cartridges have to be to work. Most K&Ns are vastly different.

And the gas analogy is just absurd. Unless an auto manufacturer was able to create a car that ran on a specific kind of fuel it had the patent for.

Now, all that said, do I like Epson? No. But they are within their rights and the courts were correct in this ruling.

Don't like it? Don't buy an Epson product. It's that easy.

I've always favored HP for printers anyhow. At any rate, all the printer companies use the same model of profiting mainly off of ink cartridge sales.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Tom
There seem to be two opinions being blended together in this thread.

One is that Epson's profit model for printers, making money primarily with cartridges, sucks. That I agree with.

The other is, that the court is supposed to decide cases based on what is best for us, consumers. That isn't the job of the court, the court bases decisions on the law, and chances are Epson has the legal right to prevent infringement on it's patents and copyrights.

So unless someone has a legal reason to oppose the court decision, I can't agree with blaming the court.

Wow, Tom and I agree.