Digital BW, The Print

Meddling by the ill-informed
> conspiracy theorist can only disrupt a market that provides wonderful
> products at great prices.
>

have you more info?? it is pretty well established that epson sells some
printers with marginal mark-up and makes the profit on the huge profits on
the inks.
Julian

Hello

I am quite ready to believe that Epson follows this pricing 
strategy.  As does Gillette, for example.  But Epson is free to 
follow any pricing strategy that it chooses, and you are free to not 
buy an Epson printer.  Absent collusion, I can see no justification 
for complaint.

> have you more info?? it is pretty well established that epson sells 
some
> printers with marginal mark-up and makes the profit on the huge 
profits on
> the inks.
> Julian

johnny999_99 wrote:

>
> The only real question here is whether or not the major suppliers are
> colluding among themselves to maintain high cartidge prices.  

Since when?

The question is not restricted in any way to whether the manufacturers 
are engaged in any kind of collusion or conspiracy to fix prices etc... 
No-one has even suggested something so ridiculous...

Go back and read the original post and the associated articles.

What the EU Commissioner and Members of the EU Parliament are saying is 
that the OEM manufacturers are using control of the consumables, through 
warranty and  technologies designed to prevent the use of 3rd party 
inks, to shift the cost of the printers to the consumables in an 
anti-competitve manner..

Shifting those costs does several things for the OEMs..

1)  It makes competition for printers less likely, as new entrants need 
to assure a supply chain which allows that kind of cost-shifting 
(meaning it has to be a VERY large corporation that can have a chain in 
place when printers are released) -- WHY? Because consumers will 
purchase a printer (by and large) based on initial sticker price.. If 
you don't cost-shift and other vendors do, you get reduced sales..

2)   It prevents reuse of the recyclable elements of the printer (a 
violation probably of both EU Law and laws in several US States)  

3)  It prevents the use of cheaper and at times better consumables. 
 Voiding a warranty because you use non OEM toner or paper in your 
copier is highly unlikely, yet it is a component of OEM inkjet warranties.

So, this has nothing to do with outright collusion or conspiracy to set 
pricing...

Anti-trust and anti-competitive practices are not restricted to those 
elements..

Your last little diatribe would have probably received a D/D- in Econ 
101 for its overly simplistic and narrow-minded analysis. I would 
suggest you need to retake the course and actually read the course 
materials, as well as the background to this discussion before again 
taking so adamant and provocative a stance,

[Keith]
 
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well Keith

di·a·tribe   :A bitter, abusive denunciation. 
Not so much. (I won't grade you on your use of English)

Let us explore the existence of barriers to entry here.

A little history.  "Currently Section 1 of the Sherman Act (1890) and 
Section 3 of the Clayton Act (1914) prohibit tying agreements 
that "restrain trade substantially." In addition, there is a vast 
antitrust case law that forbids firms with dominant market shares in 
one product (the tying good) from requiring buyers to take a second 
product (the tied good) as a condition of sale or lease" 
(http://www.independent.org/tii/news/9809Armentano.html)


1.  We have at least four very large players in the market.  If you 
agree that they compete among themselves, then I believe your whole 
argument evaporates.  The companies can only price their products, 
printer+consumables, such that they recveive a fair return on the 
capital invested.  If Epson gives away it's printers but charges $300 
for cartridges, they are unlikely to do well in the marketplace.  
People will buy from one of the other suppliers because they have 
considered the total cost of the product.  The ability to charge 
infra-marginal total prices is constrained by the presence of 
competition. N'est ce pas?

2.  The fact that Epson has "chipped" its cartridges (a measure that 
has already been defeated)is proof that the entry barriers to 3rd 
party cartirdge makers cannot be particularly high.  The story that 
you quoted speaks to the high market share (11 percent)of these 3rd 
party vendors.  I am having trouble seeing this as a difficult market 
to enter. 

So, we have a market where the incumbents are competing among 
themselves and where 3rd party vendors can easily enter the higher 
profit, consumables segment.  No wonder no-one is entering the 
printer market.  I'm thinking that this might not be a ripe target 
for price regulation.

By the way, could it be that ALPS was killed by competition?

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Editor P.O.V. Image 
Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> johnny999_99 wrote:
> 
> >
> > The only real question here is whether or not the major suppliers 
are
> > colluding among themselves to maintain high cartidge prices.  
> 
> Since when?
> 
> The question is not restricted in any way to whether the 
manufacturers 
> are engaged in any kind of collusion or conspiracy to fix prices 
etc... 
> No-one has even suggested something so ridiculous...
> 
> Go back and read the original post and the associated articles.
> 
> What the EU Commissioner and Members of the EU Parliament are 
saying is 
> that the OEM manufacturers are using control of the consumables, 
through 
> warranty and  technologies designed to prevent the use of 3rd party 
> inks, to shift the cost of the printers to the consumables in an 
> anti-competitve manner..
> 
> Shifting those costs does several things for the OEMs..
> 
> 1)  It makes competition for printers less likely, as new entrants 
need 
> to assure a supply chain which allows that kind of cost-shifting 
> (meaning it has to be a VERY large corporation that can have a 
chain in 
> place when printers are released) -- WHY? Because consumers will 
> purchase a printer (by and large) based on initial sticker price.. 
If 
> you don't cost-shift and other vendors do, you get reduced sales..
> 
> 2)   It prevents reuse of the recyclable elements of the printer (a 
> violation probably of both EU Law and laws in several US States)  
> 
> 3)  It prevents the use of cheaper and at times better consumables. 
>  Voiding a warranty because you use non OEM toner or paper in your 
> copier is highly unlikely, yet it is a component of OEM inkjet 
warranties.
> 
> So, this has nothing to do with outright collusion or conspiracy to 
set 
> pricing...
> 
> Anti-trust and anti-competitive practices are not restricted to 
those 
> elements..
> 
> Your last little diatribe would have probably received a D/D- in 
Econ 
> 101 for its overly simplistic and narrow-minded analysis. I would 
> suggest you need to retake the course and actually read the course 
> materials, as well as the background to this discussion before 
again 

> taking so adamant and provocative a stance,
> 
> [Keith]
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Simon, I get MIS to ship FS by regular post - takes 2 weeks normally - no
duties.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Whitehead" <s.whitehead@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OEM Ink Pricing & Econ 101


> Surely the best way to hold down the prices of consumables is by
competition
> and, as far as I can see, this site pursues that approach rather well.
>
> Now, I am in the UK and 3rd party 'quality' inks are not available on the
> high street.  We can't get Lyson or MIS all that easily and when we do
find
> them we are charged, at the very least, pound for dollar.  So, the best
way
> to knock down the Epson prices might be to try to get the quality inks
into
> the high street so that the competition is both real and visible.
>
> Then we would see the difference - I think.
> --
> Simon Whitehead
> s.whitehead@...
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Simon,

Lyson is a UK company based in Stockport, Cheshire. Their Lyson inks are
mainly marketed through Marrut (Marrut.co.uk). So no problems with delivery
or duty etc.

MIS will send you inks, fairly quickly in my limited experience, but whether
you get charged VAT and import duty on items purchased in the USA seems to
depend on the total cost of the package (which has to be declared by the
supplier on the package). A \ufffd40 set of cartridges seems to escape duty, but
if you purchase several hundred pounds worth of stuff from the States, UPS
or Fedex will later send you a bill for about 25% of the cost (as I've just
found out!). I haven't found a UK distributor for MIS inks yet - anyone know
if there is one?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Whitehead" <s.whitehead@...>
>
> Now, I am in the UK and 3rd party 'quality' inks are not available on the
> high street.  We can't get Lyson or MIS all that easily and when we do
find
> them we are charged, at the very least, pound for dollar.

Bob, i had the same problem. Just ask MIS to send the inks by normal
airmail. Carriers automatically declare everything to customs. The normal
post is much more hit and miss. In 3 years of buying inks and papers (and
ebay stuff) I have NEVER paid duties when the products have been despatched
this way. This was my first beef with IJM they would only ship through
courier - for valid reasons on their part - and duty on piezo inks was huge.
Any European distributor by the time they've paid duty etc will be charging
dollar to pound. Permajet rebrand VM and charge roughly 200 GBP (as opposed
to 60USD) in order to pay duties and then to resell to other firms and still
include everyone's mark-up. Perfectly reasonable, but much easier to buy
direct and wait a little longer IMO.

Julian

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OEM Ink Pricing & Econ 101


> Simon,
>
> Lyson is a UK company based in Stockport, Cheshire. Their Lyson inks are
> mainly marketed through Marrut (Marrut.co.uk). So no problems with
delivery
> or duty etc.
>
> MIS will send you inks, fairly quickly in my limited experience, but
whether
> you get charged VAT and import duty on items purchased in the USA seems to
> depend on the total cost of the package (which has to be declared by the
> supplier on the package). A \ufffd40 set of cartridges seems to escape duty,
but
> if you purchase several hundred pounds worth of stuff from the States, UPS
> or Fedex will later send you a bill for about 25% of the cost (as I've
just
> found out!). I haven't found a UK distributor for MIS inks yet - anyone
know
> if there is one?
>
> Bob Frost.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Whitehead" <s.whitehead@...>
> >
> > Now, I am in the UK and 3rd party 'quality' inks are not available on
the
> > high street.  We can't get Lyson or MIS all that easily and when we do
> find
> > them we are charged, at the very least, pound for dollar.
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I have also had contact off list from Keith Cooper who is based in the UK
and you both site Lyson as a UK company which is, of course, true.
I have various doubts about the Lyson product which arise from the many
conversations on this site. Keith was quick to reassure me and I might be
so. 

I was responding to a thread about anti trust and competition...
My point was really this:

Competition has to be real and visible.  It isn't enough (so it would seem)
to have an elite group of users valuing the special virtues of the pigment
inks and so on.  For real competition we have to get the stuff into the high
street (oops, downtown/mainstreet). Ideally I should be able to walk into PC
World (or whatever you call it) and have choice. Real choice.  Only then
will the prices come down.

It is a strange thing but even though Lyson is a UK company we still seem to
be paying pound for dollar and we don't have the shipping or duty to pay.
So I guess Lyson just think we are daft enough to pay up...

Now, the thing that really impresses me is that I have had so many kind
responses and no horrid ones (yet?)

I do like this site, especially when the exchanges remain civilized (in the
uk we use a lot of z's!).

Time for bed
TTFN
Simon
-- 
Simon Whitehead
s.whitehead@iee.org

> From: "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 17:35:30 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OEM Ink Pricing & Econ 101
> 
> Simon,
> 
> Lyson is a UK company based in Stockport, Cheshire. Their Lyson inks are
> mainly marketed through Marrut (Marrut.co.uk). So no problems with delivery
> or duty etc.
> 
> MIS will send you inks, fairly quickly in my limited experience, but whether
> you get charged VAT and import duty on items purchased in the USA seems to
> depend on the total cost of the package (which has to be declared by the
> supplier on the package). A £40 set of cartridges seems to escape duty, but
> if you purchase several hundred pounds worth of stuff from the States, UPS
> or Fedex will later send you a bill for about 25% of the cost (as I've just
> found out!). I haven't found a UK distributor for MIS inks yet - anyone know
> if there is one?
> 
> Bob Frost.

At the end of the day there has to be demand for third party ink. If 
there is not sufficient demand the vendors won't carry them. You don't 
see it on "high street" and we don't see it CompUSA, Circuit City, etc. 
in the US.  Why? The demand is not there. Why would Epson or Canon risk 
anti-trust violations by pressuring such vendors not to carry third 
party inks, when they won't carry them anyway since they won't sell 
enough to make it worth their while? Answer is they won't. That's Econ 
101. It has little to do with Epson or Canon, it has to do with the 
consumer. I don't know about the EU, but in the US if you have been 
following the Microsoft soap opera, the settlement with the federal 
government has put the bar pretty high as to what has to be proved for 
non-competitive practices.  The states that chose not to go with the 
initial settlement may get a few more concessions, but at the end of the 
day Microsoft is going to be pursuing its initial business plan.

I think this ink business would be a hard sell as far as 
anti-competitive practices, at least in the US.

Truman

Simon Whitehead wrote:

>
>
> Competition has to be real and visible.  It isn't enough (so it would 
> seem)
> to have an elite group of users valuing the special virtues of the pigment
> inks and so on.  For real competition we have to get the stuff into 
> the high
> street (oops, downtown/mainstreet). Ideally I should be able to walk 
> into PC
> World (or whatever you call it) and have choice. Real choice.  Only then
> will the prices come down.
>
> It is a strange thing but even though Lyson is a UK company we still 
> seem to
> be paying pound for dollar and we don't have the shipping or duty to pay.
> So I guess Lyson just think we are daft enough to pay up...
>
> Now, the thing that really impresses me is that I have had so many kind
> responses and no horrid ones (yet?)
>
> I do like this site, especially when the exchanges remain civilized 
> (in the
> uk we use a lot of z's!).
>
> Time for bed
> TTFN
> Simon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@b...> 
wrote:
>A £40 set of cartridges seems to escape duty, but
> if you purchase several hundred pounds worth of stuff from the 
States, UPS
> or Fedex will later send you a bill for about 25% of the cost (as 
I've just
> found out!).

Sorry about this delayed reply.  I'm in the throws of moving flats 
and am still flitting between rooms in 2 other properties owned by 
family.  So I am catching up on the digest version as and when I get 
the chance.

I wanted to share my recent experiences with duties for goods coming 
into the UK.  What I have to say is OT but probably of use to some 
list members.  Apologies in advance.

I recently had Colorvision send me a replacement for a spyder that I 
bought from the US.  It was sent by UPS with a declared value of $50 -
 approx GBP35.  When the UPS guy asked for GBP20.50 in duties and 
handling fees, I hit the roof.  I refused initially to pay and 
contacted Customs & Excise.  I was told that duty is payable for any 
postal import over GBP18.  What a ridiculously low value.  UK based 
list members will know that you are given an allowance of GBP135 for 
goods you carry into the country in person.

Anyway, the C&E officer explained that duty is charged on the FULL 
declared value if over GBP18 (ie GBP18 allowance is not deducted) 
PLUS shipping costs AND THEN VAT is added to the total of that.  That 
came to GBP10.50 in my case.  The sting in the tail was the UPS 
handling charge of GBP10.

I was told that duty rates can vary from 3% to 100% depending on the 
individual product (even within the range of a given product type) 
but my experience is that duties are roughly 20%.

Since this is OT enough, I won't start to guess what US duty rates 
are. :)

K2

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 09:09:08PM -0000, k2_chittin wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@b...> 
> wrote:
> >A \ufffd40 set of cartridges seems to escape duty, but
> > if you purchase several hundred pounds worth of stuff from the 
> States, UPS
> > or Fedex will later send you a bill for about 25% of the cost (as 
> I've just
> > found out!).
> 
> Sorry about this delayed reply.  I'm in the throws of moving flats 
> and am still flitting between rooms in 2 other properties owned by 
> family.  So I am catching up on the digest version as and when I get 
> the chance.
> 
> I wanted to share my recent experiences with duties for goods coming 
> into the UK.  What I have to say is OT but probably of use to some 
> list members.  Apologies in advance.
> 
> I recently had Colorvision send me a replacement for a spyder that I 
> bought from the US.  It was sent by UPS with a declared value of $50 -
>  approx GBP35.  When the UPS guy asked for GBP20.50 in duties and 
> handling fees, I hit the roof.  I refused initially to pay and 
> contacted Customs & Excise.  I was told that duty is payable for any 
> postal import over GBP18.  What a ridiculously low value.  UK based 
> list members will know that you are given an allowance of GBP135 for 
> goods you carry into the country in person.
> 
> Anyway, the C&E officer explained that duty is charged on the FULL 
> declared value if over GBP18 (ie GBP18 allowance is not deducted) 
> PLUS shipping costs AND THEN VAT is added to the total of that.  That 
> came to GBP10.50 in my case.  The sting in the tail was the UPS 
> handling charge of GBP10.
> 

If it was a replacement (was this for a faulty one?) then you should not be
charged duty or VAT at all - that would have been covered by the initial
purchase and import.

I agree that the UPS handling fee is tantamount to usury. I will never
purchase a product from abroad if they insist on sending it UPS.

I also think that charging VAT on the full shipping costs is also morally
wrong, especially when much of that cost is incurred outside of the country.

-- 
Tony Terlecki
ajt@...

Tony

The unit *was* a replacement.  The C&E officer explained that, in 
order not to attract duty and VAT on replacements, the original unit 
needs to be returned to the supplier with a C181 form (I think - it 
was a while ago), which first needs to be obtained from C&E.  The 
replacement unit must then be imported with the C181 form. In my 
case, not only was I not aware of this, but Colorvision had not 
collected the original unit yet. :(  In fact, I was conversing via 
email with Colorvision tech support about my problems and was not 
even aware that the replacement was on its way until I received it.

K2

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Tony Terlecki <ajt@m...> 
wrote:
> If it was a replacement (was this for a faulty one?) then you 
should not be
> charged duty or VAT at all - that would have been covered by the 
initial
> purchase and import.
> 
> I agree that the UPS handling fee is tantamount to usury. I will 
never
> purchase a product from abroad if they insist on sending it UPS.
> 
> I also think that charging VAT on the full shipping costs is also 
morally
> wrong, especially when much of that cost is incurred outside of the 
country.

> 
> -- 
> Tony Terlecki
> ajt@m...