Joost Horsten wrote:
> Of course Epson's recent US court victory does not apply to Europe,
> where I'm based (Netherlands). But it would be naive to think it has
> no effect. Actually I don't know what the legal status of refillable
> cartridges is in Europe. I assume they're (still?) legal, since I got
> my 2100 set from the UK. If so, I would not be afraid cartridge
> manufacturers will stop making them, assuming many of them come from
> Asia...
>
> But encouraged by their success, Epson might aim his arrows to Europe
> as well. And the leading ink B&W suppliers (Cone & MIS) are US-based.
> They are not directly affected, but without US cartridges less
> business for them, which could have the risk they go out of
> business... And finally, this community may diminish and new
> developments can get sparse...
>
> Anyone some more insights?
>
> Joost
US consumers think it is better organised in the EU. The
only thing I know about EU ruling is that the environmental
aspect of cartridges has been heavily discussed. They should
be refillable. But there's no mention that third parties
should be able to refill them. The printer manufacturers had
their say and I only expect that there is a rule that the
manufacturers have to make a recycling path possible or
finance it and that can be done in many ways including
asking extra money on the cart price to subsidise the waste
industry. EU patent ruling is different from what the US
patent ruling became over the last decade. Not to mention
the abuse of DMCA rules by Lexmark in the US. It's a
lawyers country over there so I do not think this battle is
over yet.
On cart patents: Epson already strangled some third party
companies in the UK. My best guess was that Epson + the
companies involved made a kind of PR scheme to avoid a court
battle and make the best of a shared problem. The companies
now sell Epson carts, possibly with a better margin than
others selling the same carts. Epson could ventilate the
warnings about ink incompatibility and the companies
probably have a better margin and no need for a lawyer. So
there's no real jurisdiction yet.
Right now I'm using a HP Z3100 and for me that printer has
90% of what I need with the 10 % being the paper transport
issues. It does the B&W I like. Ink price per ML is the same
as you will pay for Canon or Epson at the same cart contents
but I have seen in practice that it wastes maybe 40% less on
ink compared to Epson due to a much more refined head
conditioning scheme and being a far more reliable printer in
general. I have used a variety of Lyson, Van Son, Staedtler,
Mediastreet, MIS inks in Epsons and found ways to refill the
10000CF carts and the 9000 + 9600 + 9800 carts or made CIS
systems for them. Not just for price but because Epson
didn't have the inks we needed. Running one Z3100 44" is way
cheaper than having several Epsons doing the same even when
using third party inks. It prints 24/7 or after two weeks
rest. On gloss and matte without ink loss. If HP isn't
increasing its ink prices terribly I'm not looking back.
Paul:
It doesn't tell much to quote HP's graphics division profit
as an indication of ink profit, to get an idea what HP does
in the graphic industry you should push that right button on
their website pages, HP and FujiFilm are becoming the giants
in the graphics industry, by growth and acquisitions. HP
usually is sketched as the Gillette of inkjet inks but I
actually think that Epson deserves that label more with its
archaic black switch, the excessive cleaning charges, the
waste you pay twice for with a chipped !! waste ink box. I
have always written that if Epson asks a price for a chipped
ink waste box they should take care of an environmental save
waste disposal of it too. None of that here, it is actually
better to take care of it yourself and reset and refill the
box. Add to that the up to 20 % ink loss the first 9600/7600
users were confronted with when their carts were declared
empty by the chip. Led to an uproar. The Z3100 has a pump in
the carts that almost drains the cart but more to my
surprise there's more ink in the full carts than written in
the specs, the 1 to 3 ml left in the cart isn't paid for.
Canon and HP introduced separate carts on the desktop models
before Epson did so. The Epson 5000 with the Twin carts had
M and LM in one cart and C and LC in the other. You had to
throw half the M and half the C content away when the LM and
LC were empty and that is the well known pattern of ink use.
There was no technical reason to do so as the inklines
internally crossed their way anyway. I think Epson has had a
monopoly of fine photography printers too long for nice
ethics. The first is no longer the case but it will be hard
to face real competition and adapting ethics at the same
time. Why people in this industry expect that Kodak may come
to the rescue is beyond my imagination. Ask Wilhelm what
Kodak has done and still does to blindfold their consumers.
Ink price is just one aspect of printer economy, enough ways
to create extra income as sketched above.
--
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
| Dinkla Grafische Techniek |
| www.pigment-print.com |
| ( unvollendet ) |