I doubt this will have any impact on those of us who use B&W inksets. All we need is empty carts and chips that work. Epson won a court battle with respect to its chips some time ago, and the impact was minimal on most of us, though they made it harder to deal with some lines, such as the 3800 line.
From the individual's perspective, no serious company is likely to go after an end user who is just a photographer. They'd target large companies refilling their carts.
On the other hand, some of us individuals doing early fade testing did get threats from at least a couple companies whose inks didn't do very well. Livick pulled his results off the web. My response was, "Make my day." That would have been great publicity. They backed off fast.
Paul
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Matt Haber matt@matthaber.com [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
-mattThis directly impacts Lexmark, but, as the linked article points out, if the court finds in favor of Lexmark, the implications may be significant. It seems possible, for example, that Epson could have a shrink-wrap agreement on its printers that would require use only of Epson branded cartridges, which would have their own anti-refill shrink wrap agreement.Paul Roark, you often have throughtful views of these legal matters. I'd appreciate thoughts from you, or others.