Digital BW, The Print

Peter Nelson wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alan Zinn 
>
>
>  
>
>>Seems to me that the government will see this as a
>>restraint of trade issue.  I don't think a company
>>would be so short-sighted, but then look at the
>>antics of the DVD interests.
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>A product manufacturer is under no obligation to make it easy for 
>other companies to interface to his product.   Microsoft does not 
>have to supply an API to its software products, or if they DO supply 
>an API they are under no obligation to expose all possible behaviors 
>or interfaces. 
>  
>
That's a VERY different kettle of fish from undertaking blatant efforts 
designed to effect no other goal than: making the ability to use 
alternative consumables either nearly literally impossible (handshaking 
encrypted chips) or so high, as to create an unfair restraint of trade 
.  Imagine INtel designing a chip, that didn't just optimize Windows 
related instructions sets, but if it saw non-windows OS code, it would 
shut itself down, thereby preventing the use of any other OS.. That 
would clearly be a restraint of trade and even Intel knows it (and M$ 
has learned at least that much, the HARD way)..

In such cases, in a marketplace where the product is no longer a niche 
product, look at the legal cases involving Xerox et. al. and consumables 
or some automobile replacement parts manufacture,  you have what is 
called more exactly "illegal vertical tying." 

Didn't you lose this argument already, back at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/26305



I'm a Republican myself, but under the current RIDICULOUSLY, "anything 
goes in business as long as US companies are printing cash for owners 
and shareholders marketplace," where things like the  FCC proposing to 
allow more consolidation of media ownership, and the White House 
threatening to veto appropriations legislation from both (Republican 
controlled I might add) houses of Congress that would prevent the FCC 
from implementing such ludicrously anti-democratic policies - in such an 
environment HP and Lexmark et al believe they can do "as they will" to 
restrain trade..

Implementing a scheme like this, or Lexmark's patented cartridge that 
destroys itself when ink runs low,  may just tip the balance though..  
The manufacturers need to remember it isn't only the Feds that can cost 
you lots of $$ in anti-trust litigation.  Ask M$ about the State 
Attorneys General..  ;-)  

In some sense I hope HP does go ahead with this lunacy.  Given the 
number of HP printers in gov't offices, and the ubiquity of inkjets in 
the marketplace, a showdown would definitely be brewing.. When tying is 
allowed in a market segment, historically, there have been one or two 
parties who "take the game too far" and end up generating litigation 
that overturns the entire set of practices in that market segment.. In 
this case HP and Lexmark seem hell bent on doing so.. All I can say is 
they must REALLY NEED short term profit to risk such a bold-faced cash 
grab.     Once this all ends up in a US court, I'd bet dollars to donuts 
that the whole "chipped-cartridges to enable cost-shifting" game will be 
effectively over...  HP and Lexmark are showing unrestrained greed here, 
along with utilizing every practical avenue to tie the original product 
and its consumable feed pipeline. Whatever the White House may think 
will make little difference if this ends up in the courts..

Not to mention that the EU legislation specifically prohibiting such 
practices in printers comes into effect in about 18 months.. ;-)  (If I 
remember correctly) Thereby preventing HP from even selling any of these 
encrypted printers in the EU..

Peter, I believe wholeheartedly in free-trade and an open-market.   
However, it is plain and simple blindness to think that allowing OEMs to 
utilize their $ and market position to BY DESIGN add product features 
that have NO OTHER rational goal than to prevent the entry of 3rd party 
suppliers into the consumable feed stream is about as blatant an example 
of restraint of trade as one can technologically concoct.  We aren't 
talking about not making it easy for others to interface with a product, 
we are talking about designs effectuated in attempts to make it 
impossible.. It's the same philosophical difference (moral questions 
aside) we see in say, criminal law, between accidentally shooting a 
third part when defending yourself or a removing the uterus of a 
pregnant woman with aggressive uterine cancer thereby terminating a 
fetus (both would be unintended consequences, with the second, perhaps, 
more unavoidable) when compare to randomly purposely shooting a third 
party to demonstrate your pique during an argument with another party or 
purposely aborting the same fetus to effectuate effective "birth 
control."   For those who see no ethical or real difference, or unable 
to parse the difference, between the first set of instances and the 
second: I feel sorry for you and hope you NEVER end up on the judicial 
bench anywhere (except perhaps somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Iran, 
where Justice is eminently simplistic)..

  
  

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"