Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Supreme Court case on refilling printer cartridges

Supreme Court case on refilling printer cartridges

2017-03-26 by Matt Haber

This 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.

-matt

Re: [Digital BW] Supreme Court case on refilling printer cartridges

2017-03-27 by Paul Roark

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
www.PaulRoark.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Matt Haber matt@matthaber.com [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

This 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.

-matt


Re: [Digital BW] Supreme Court case on refilling printer cartridges

2017-03-28 by mcolby@...

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.

Re: [Digital BW] Supreme Court case on refilling printer cartridges

2017-03-28 by Paul Roark

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
www.PaulRoark.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
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.


Re: [Digital BW] Supreme Court case on refilling printer cartridges

2017-03-28 by mflum7@...

This does not address the fact that the new Epson P800 has found a way to prevent the use of resetable carts, that to this day has not been overcome. This will also prevent the use of Black and White carts in P800. So after one refill the cart is useless.


Epson will continue this trend (Profit) for all printers developed beyond the Epson P800 unless this design is overcome. So the case is very important to ANYONE using refillable carts.


See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmtxzeyLHRU

(Jose Rodriguez: The Actual Reason why the North American EPSON P800 Does NOT work with Refillable ARC Carts)

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Supreme Court case on refilling printer cartridges

2017-04-01 by Paul Roark

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract .

As I understand it in the context of printers, this would say that when a consumer of inks opens the shrink wrapped packaging, the consumer agrees not to refill the carts. Lexmark has apparently adopted this type of contract on its inks.

My reaction to it is that with respect to individuals, there is no way to enforce it even if valid. A large company, however, might be the subject of a lawsuit, but even there, I think it's a weak strategy for the printer companies.

From a consumer perspective, if one wants to use third party inks, just be sure there are good empty carts and chips for the product before purchasing it.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:46 AM, paulmwhiting@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Can someone tell me what "shrinkwrap"; means?

Thanks!

Paul W.


Re: [Digital BW] Supreme Court case on refilling printer cartridges

2017-04-02 by Sam McCandless

On Apr 1, 2017, at 4:46 AM, paulmwhiting@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Can someone tell me what "shrinkwrap" means?

	Yes, Paul; I think it’s a rolled plastic film which will shrink into a package you wrap it in, possibly for labeling or obscuring it in the process.

Sam McCandless, who’s helping a foot free grandaughter move a rescued puppy across the U.S. by car.

RE: [Digital BW] Supreme Court case on refilling printer cartridges

2017-04-03 by Brentley Beerline

Shrinkwrap in this case means that when you open a package you explicitly agree to the terms.   

In the old days of software when you opened the disk envelope or sometimes even opened the shrinkwrap on the outside it was assumed that you agreed with the license terms that the company was imposing on you.


Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: Sam McCandless samcc@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 3:42 PM
To: jacques.caron@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Supreme Court case on refilling printer cartridges

  
On Apr 1, 2017, at 4:46 AM, paulmwhiting@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Can someone tell me what "shrinkwrap" means?

	Yes, Paul; I think it’s a rolled plastic film which will shrink into a package you wrap it in, possibly for labeling or obscuring it in the process.

Sam McCandless, who’s helping a foot free grandaughter move a rescued puppy across the U.S. by car.

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.