I have not studied the current approach on this "shrinkwrap" theory, but I as a consumer buy empty carts, not Epson carts, and I buy chips from a company other than Epson. So, I have no privity of contract with Epson. Whether the companies selling the chips are, in fact, using recycled Epson chips is a question I don't know the answer to. Some I've used seen to clearly be new chips that simple are compatible with the Epson hardware. Again, under this "shrinkwrap" theory, there is likely not privity of contract even for the chip sellers.
I think Epson had a better cause of action some years ago, and even then they failed to actually stop the third party sellers or convince Customs to block the imports.
Again, as a practical matter, I just doubt the B&W printers or suppliers are going to be the targets of any legal action. The entire dedicated B&W market is probably too small to bother with. I also think the shrinkwrap theory is a loser for the printer companies. The companies selling the third party inks and carts probably are not covered by it at all, but then again, I have not studied the field from that perspective. From the little I've read or seen, however, I don't think the matter will have any impact on what I do.
Paul
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:54 PM, mcolby@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
really? If Lexmark prevails, Epson won't use the now established case law to file suit against Jon Cone's Inkjet mall and other purveyors of 3rd party inks and CIS systems that rely on 3rd party cartridges outfitted with re-used OEM chips?
Since Epson won its consent decree from the ITC how are InkJet Mall and other companies selling 3rd party inks in individual cartridges or CIS systems importing the non EOM cartridges that enable their solutions.