Digital BW, The Print

I don't know if the forum members are aware, but the European Union's, Commissioner for Competition., Nellie Kroes, is presiding over a long term investigation into alleged anti-competitive practices, by the OEM  printer companies, Canon, Epson, HP and Lexmark.

If anyone resident within the EU has any evidence of the OEM's anti-competitive practices that disadvantage the consumer, they should write to the Commissioner with their complaint.

Commissioner Kroes email address is: Neelie.Kroes@... and her web page is: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kroes/index_en.html

Additionally, the recent decision by the US ITC should be reported to the WTO for appeal.

No doubt members will be aware of the of the EU's 613 million dollar fine imposed in 2004 by the Commission over Microsoft's abuse of Monopolistic power.  Does any of this sound a little bit familiar and does it relate to the present situation with regard to Epson?

Don't sit back and let them get away with it - do something about it!

 




      ___________________________________________________________ 
Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good  http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html

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

Asking the European Union to lower the bar to
accommodate  inferior "competitors" and to punish
Epson/Canon/HP for excellence and innovation is the
old-time bureaucratic thinking that contributed to the
collapse of the Soviet Union.  

Why the concern about Chinese-manufactured plastic
products? Ink's more important. 

Wouldn't it be better to ask consumer watchdog
agencies to punish companies that distribute
printer-damaging, clogging inks, and cartridges that
commonly fail, and CIS systems that damage print
heads, than to to penalize companies that make good
products?

On Nov 14, 2007 7:13 AM, john kelly <djon43@...> wrote:

> Asking the European Union to lower the bar to
> accommodate  inferior "competitors" and to punish
> Epson/Canon/HP for excellence and innovation is the
> old-time bureaucratic thinking that contributed to the
> collapse of the Soviet Union.


Nothing like the spectre of communism to prove you are right.


> Why the concern about Chinese-manufactured plastic
> products? Ink's more important.
>

Since we can't just pour ink in the printer, the plastic product you mention
is inseparable part of the equation.


> Wouldn't it be better to ask consumer watchdog
> agencies to punish companies that distribute
> printer-damaging, clogging inks, and cartridges that
> commonly fail, and CIS systems that damage print
> heads, than to to penalize companies that make good
> products?
>

Sounds good. Does this by definition automatically include
Canon/Epson/HP/Lexmark and exclude everyone else?

Perhaps we should just invade China?


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

john kelly wrote:
> Asking the European Union to lower the bar to
> accommodate  inferior "competitors" and to punish
> Epson/Canon/HP for excellence and innovation is the
> old-time bureaucratic thinking that contributed to the
> collapse of the Soviet Union.  
>
> Why the concern about Chinese-manufactured plastic
> products? Ink's more important. 
And that, I think, is the point. Ink *is* more important.

It's pretty clear that Epson intends to use their patents on ink 
delivery technology (that is, ink carts and chip systems) to lock in 
people using their machines to force them to buy their inks from Epson. 
This is fairly clearly illegal under U. S. Anti-Trust law. But it will 
take many years and lots of resources to prove that case -- and who has 
the deep pockets required to make the case?

While it can be argued that Epson has some level of innovation going on 
with color inks, it can also be argued that their B&W efforts are 
inferior to third party B&W inksets from MIS, Cone, and other third 
party suppliers.

The fear is that rather than compete with MIS and Cone, Epson will use 
their patents on carts to exert undue market power to shut MIS, Cone, 
and the others out of Epson's machines and thus protect Epson from 
competition in inksets.

While you might think that MIS and Cone are "inferior 'competitors'" 
many of us here find their products superior. Not a few people who make 
their livings using the competitive inks feel quite threated by this 
protectionist action by Epson and the USITC. Without the empty carts, 
they can't use the inks. Without the inks, they can't satisfy their 
customers. And *that* is the kind of bureaucratic thinking that 
contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
--
Bruce Watson

No. It would not be better.

Shouldn't it be the choice of the individual to make that
determination? It's very easy to do. Why pay some less than discerning
level of bureaucracy to arbitrate what you may or may not try.
Using the third party materials most in use by folks on this group
doesn't particularly cause all those nasty things you speak of. Truth
is that most unfortunate results come from one's trying to take giant
steps while still in baby shoes.Those who would venture need to spend
some time and energy in learning how to avoid such things and what to
do to resolve them if a mistake is made.If one doesn't wish,or can't
afford, to spend that time and energy they aren't compelled to venture
at all.They can just stick with the OEM solutions and, hopefully,
await innovation. What they may Not do is force everyone else to
follow suit merely because of their own prejudicial experience.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, john kelly
<djon43@...> wrote:

> 
> Wouldn't it be better to ask consumer watchdog
> agencies to punish companies that distribute
> printer-damaging, clogging inks, and cartridges that
> commonly fail, and CIS systems that damage print
> heads, than to to penalize companies that make good
> products?
>