Supreme Court rebuffs Lexmark in toner cartridge fight

[IGBT]

Text


The legal fight began in December 2002, when Lexmark sued Static Control Components Inc. (SCC), which makes electronic chips used by refurbished toner cartridge makers to allow specific printers to recognize the replacement cartridges when they are installed. Lexmark alleged that Sanford, N.C.-based SCC violated U.S. copyright law by producing the chips, arguing that SCC's Smartek chips include Lexmark software that is protected by copyright.

 

[The Sauce]

So....is this good or bad?

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
So....is this good or bad?

Tis Good

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Snatchface
So....is this good or bad?

Tis Good

Yes; you sort of have to read the article for it to make sense. At least I had to.


Seems that a company was making chips that let others produce toner cartridges that would work in Lexmark printers - generic printer cartridges basically. Lexmark sued the chipmaker, because if you're using generic cartridges, you aren't paying Lexmark as much money, which made them upset. And what do you do nowadays when you aren't making as much money as you think you should? Sue someone.

 

[kornphlake]

Rather it's good or bad really depends on who you are. For consumers it's good, we can buy generic cartridges at a fraction of the cost of genuine lexmark cartridges and they'll be 100% compatible. For the manufacturer it's bad, they'd likely figured the cost of a lifetime of print cartridges would offset their R&D costs and were able to offer the printer at a discounted price. Now Lexmark isn't making as much off of replacement print cartridges so the price of the printers themselves won't reflect the discount. Either you pay for overpiced print cartridges for a dirt cheap printer, or you pay for an overpiced printer that works with dirt cheap cartridges.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

For a while, it was cheaper to just buy a new Lexmark printer than replacement ink for the darn things. I've thrown out three or four Lexmarks for just this reason.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
For a while, it was cheaper to just buy a new Lexmark printer than replacement ink for the darn things. I've thrown out three or four Lexmarks for just this reason.

That is the case with most printers....

That reminds me, I've got to refill one of my printer cartridges tonight...

 

[kitkat22]

I would have to agree with the upping of the price of the printers themselves. I would actually prefer it that way, though the company will say differently. The see the expense of the printer as nothing compared to the revenues they will recieve through the print cartridges. I remember my uncle stating that ounce per ounce the ink in the cartridges is equal to some of the more expensive wines. The same principle is applied when Comcast sends the "three months for $25.00 for high-speed" in the mail. The fine print states the fact it is $25, however, after the three months the price escalates to $54. (At least here it does.) They are trying to hook the consumer to their products and charge for the "service."

 

[Zepper]

It has been shown over and over that you can't stop other people from making film for your camera, blades for your razor, etc., etc. Now even Lexmark laser printers are of unreliable quality - those used to be good across the board. And anyone who would actually buy a Lexmark ink jet when the Canon Pixma line is out there, is certifiable... Caveat emptor.

.bh.

 

[casper114]

Yea, I have an hp photo printer that I picked up for 40 bucks and the black and color cartridges put together cost more then the printer itself. Really dumb. Are inkjet cartrides refillable? Could I buy some ink and refill them myself?

 

[theMan]

sweet, the cartrages i buy for my canon printer are 3x cheaper than the canon ones. sweet!!