Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson court decision- cross posted  (Read 48707 times)
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2007, 10:47:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Want a simple solution? Do what I did: Dump Epson.
Problem solved, 'nuff said.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2007, 11:23:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Want a simple solution? Do what I did: Dump Epson.
Problem solved, 'nuff said.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, it isn't "nuff said". What makes you think it will be any cheaper to print at equivalent quality using Canon and HP inks and media? Have you studied the alternatives using a reliable comparative data base?

The most recent HP cartridge I bought for my HP BusinessJet printer was about $48.50 before taxes for 28 ml of DYE ink. That's $1.73 per ml. It's made in Singapore. The box says "Not licensed for modification". The cartridge has the insignia "PP" for "Patent Pending" and says "For single use only". It is also chipped, so the printer verifies it for compatibility on installation.

The cost of PIGMENT photographic quality ink for my Epson 3800 is 71 cents per ml and for my Epson 4800 49 cents per ml.

Then of course the amount of ink per print needs to be factored-in on a  comparable basis. That means developing a data base for all comparable machines in the comparison operating over a period of at least 4 to 6 months. Once you've done that come back and tell us which is the most economic. Then it will be "nuff said".
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2007, 01:31:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I pay $50 for 130 ml of ink for my HP z3100. That's about 39 cents / ml. Tempting to just say "nuff said" right there! But I'm having to do a Windows reinstall, so I've got time to kill. I pass those ink costs on to my customers. With Epson, I wasted a lot of ink clearing the Epson clogs. Haven't had that problem with the z, so while I would always be happy to pay less, I don't feel HP is sticking it to me the way I always felt Epson was sticking it to me. But those were the days when HP and Canon didn't really have any real competition to challenge Epson. Thankfully, those days are over.

I certainly have no problem with people using 3rd party ink or chipped cartridges or whatever. Back in the day (before I went wide format) I had a Niagara CIS on a 1280. A maintenance headache, but more time than money = tolerate the headache. Glad those days are gone. Epson should change their business model from, "we're the only game in town, you have to use our carts" to something more workable. To do otherwise will only send more people to the competition, especially now that what the competition offers is at least as good as Epson, frankly, the z is better on several fronts FOR ME (don't need another pissing contest on this thread). Instead, Epson is wasting time in the courts. This time and energy would be better spent addressing WHY customers are so eager to get 3rd party carts, pirated carts, or whatever.

Has any company ever tried charging more for their printer up front and then dumped as much money as Epson has dumped in the courts on marketing how incredible cheap the carts for that printer are? Who knows...it might work...as I think every one is long since wise to the "cheap or free printer, we kill you with the ink carts" gimmick.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2007, 04:10:36 PM »
ReplyReply

HP itself sells those cartsd for 75 dollars, which is 58 cents/ml, i.e. within the range of Epson. How muich per ml? Then print heads are consumables on the z3100. Question is: ink per print including clogging. My experince with Epson printers is that when they're new they clog very little and as they age they clog more. I have a very good, transparent data track on how much ink gets used for cleaning versus making prints with the Epson printers I've been using. Time is needed to build this up so we have a representative sample of behaviour yielding reliable cost information. The z3100 is relatively new on the market and I don't know users tracking its cost performance - though they musts exist as this machine is primarily targeted at commercial users.

Anyhow, this time, the basic point you are making is sensible. The fine-art printer market is really opening-up which is good for us consumers, because it will allow competition - finally - to discipline costs, performance and quality. This will be a far more effective vehicle opeating in our favour than useless letter-writing campaigns and rear-guard battles over the justification of patent law.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Avalan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2007, 08:00:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark

Prices and the availability for all the inks (Epson, Canon, HP) varies big time, depending on the country and the supplier. Usually the best prices could be found in the US.

The price for the HP Vivera 130mil cartridges for a single pack in the US is $65, and under$100 for the twin pack and probably can be found even a bit lower if you dig more.

As far as just the ink price is  concerned, HP has the lowest price per mil, if bought twin packs in the States.
And there so many other factors when it comes to evaluate the inks as we know :

For the longevity, HP is the big winner. As twice as archival.
other issues:
How much ink will be used for nozzle checks and how much ink will be used per square foot on a given paper and a given printer? And bottom line, which printer is the most cost effective for ink usage in the long run? Have not seen any comparison data about this.

Which ink gives a better color for color or black&white etc? There have been lots of reports and the bottom line is  which one works better for you.


And thanks for all of the posts in this thread. I found them very interesting to read and informative, regardless of different stands on the discussed issues.

Regards - Avalan
Logged
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2007, 09:08:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I pay $50 for 130 ml of ink for my HP z3100. That's about 39 cents / ml. Tempting to just say "nuff said" right there! But I'm having to do a Windows reinstall, so I've got time to kill. I pass those ink costs on to my customers. With Epson, I wasted a lot of ink clearing the Epson clogs. Haven't had that problem with the z, so while I would always be happy to pay less, I don't feel HP is sticking it to me the way I always felt Epson was sticking it to me. But those were the days when HP and Canon didn't really have any real competition to challenge Epson. Thankfully, those days are over.

I certainly have no problem with people using 3rd party ink or chipped cartridges or whatever. Back in the day (before I went wide format) I had a Niagara CIS on a 1280. A maintenance headache, but more time than money = tolerate the headache. Glad those days are gone. Epson should change their business model from, "we're the only game in town, you have to use our carts" to something more workable. To do otherwise will only send more people to the competition, especially now that what the competition offers is at least as good as Epson, frankly, the z is better on several fronts FOR ME (don't need another pissing contest on this thread). Instead, Epson is wasting time in the courts. This time and energy would be better spent addressing WHY customers are so eager to get 3rd party carts, pirated carts, or whatever.

Has any company ever tried charging more for their printer up front and then dumped as much money as Epson has dumped in the courts on marketing how incredible cheap the carts for that printer are? Who knows...it might work...as I think every one is long since wise to the "cheap or free printer, we kill you with the ink carts" gimmick.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think you've missed Jeff Schewe's point.  HP and Canon will defend their patents every bit as rigorously as Epson if they have to.  Not to do so in the corporate world is malfeasance.  This isn't about getting cheaper ink.  Its about defending your intellectual property.  Something that shareholders value and hold executives responsible for.
Logged

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-family:Geneva'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Regards,
Ron[/span][/span][/span][/span]
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2007, 11:46:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think you've missed Jeff Schewe's point.  HP and Canon will defend their patents every bit as rigorously as Epson if they have to.  Not to do so in the corporate world is malfeasance.  This isn't about getting cheaper ink.  Its about defending your intellectual property.  Something that shareholders value and hold executives responsible for.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I understand the point. And, like the RIAA "sue 'em til they bleed" analogy I listed earlier, overzealous enforcement of one's "rights" might do more damage to one's business than adapting to changing environments.

Again, why is there a strong demand for 3rd party inks, carts, etc.? And how can a company (Epson, HP, Canon, doesn't matter) stem that demand? Spend company time and money in court enforcing patents? So they put a dent in the "legitimate" 3rd party ink /cart makers. They aren't going to touch the pirated versions of the same. They're called "pirates" for a reason.

Here's a novel idea: put the 3rd party ink / cart suppliers out of business by competing on price and quality.

We all know the real motivation here: For years printer makers (Epson being the king) enjoyed sticking it to consumers charging some really outrageous prices for carts (speaking of court cases, let's not forget that Epson-ware would tell you a cart was "empty" when it was sometimes 30% - 50% full...hello!) to the point they took this scheme, er "business model" for granted...."Fat and happy," one might say.

The reality is 3rd party cart makers / ink suppliers will survive, even if only in pirate form. Energy wasted on clogging the courts is better spent developing new, improved business models that respond to a changing environment. Epson isn't doing that and that has only helped open the door for HP and Canon. Maybe we should all thank the Epson legal team for helping bring us some choices!

One can also argue that more wide format printers being sold for less, with larger, far more economical ink carts was hastened by the widespread use of bottled ink CIS systems and 3rd party cart systems. So maybe we also need to thank the "pirates" for helping bring us some choices!

I focus on Epson because they were the clear leader in photo printing for years. I think history will show that Epson blew some real opportunities to really  keep market share...focusing on trying to grab all the cats and put them back in the bag by enforcing patents clearly wasn't / isn't a winning strategy. Greed often proves to be expensive.

I've got all kinds of time to philosophize because doing a clean install of XP and Vista.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2868


« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2007, 02:25:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark

As far as just the ink price is  concerned, HP has the lowest price per mil, if bought twin packs in the States.
And there so many other factors when it comes to evaluate the inks as we know :

For the longevity, HP is the big winner. As twice as archival.
other issues:
How much ink will be used for nozzle checks and how much ink will be used per square foot on a given paper and a given printer? And bottom line, which printer is the most cost effective for ink usage in the long run? Have not seen any comparison data about this.

Regards - Avalan
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bought in similar sized packages say 250 ml the ink price per ml is the same for all three manufacturers. At least that's what I see in the German market. That list has been in some of my messages. It really comes down to ink economy on the printer and HP scores best of the three. There has been a thread on this list about Canon's periodical cleaning and I was surprised what went down the drain that way.

Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2007, 06:38:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bought in similar sized packages say 250 ml the ink price per ml is the same for all three manufacturers. At least that's what I see in the German market. That list has been in some of my messages. It really comes down to ink economy on the printer and HP scores best of the three. There has been a thread on this list about Canon's periodical cleaning and I was surprised what went down the drain that way.

Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ernst, I'd like to get clarity on some of what you are saying here. It is correct that price per ml varies inversely with the volume of the container. HP USA website only sells 130 ml single or twinpack. Thier website was working poorly yesterday and I ddn't get the twinpack price; now I see the single price is what I quoted yesterday, and the twinpack (2*130) USD 119, bringing the price to 46 ml - just a bit less than for my Epson 4800 in 220 ml configuration. There are no 250 ml cartridges for either Epson or HP.

More interesting of course, as you mention, is how the ink gets used. I did see that thread on Canon's ink use for cleaning and it is high, but so is Epson's - in fact very high on my 4000 and the 4800 once they get on in life. You say HP scores best of the three. Do you have any real-life user data (i.e. not official statements from HP) on the amount of ink consumed for printing, cleaning and maintenance on the HP z series? I'd be very interested to see that.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2868


« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2007, 08:07:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ernst, I'd like to get clarity on some of what you are saying here. It is correct that price per ml varies inversely with the volume of the container. HP USA website only sells 130 ml single or twinpack. Thier website was working poorly yesterday and I ddn't get the twinpack price; now I see the single price is what I quoted yesterday, and the twinpack (2*130) USD 119, bringing the price to 46 ml - just a bit less than for my Epson 4800 in 220 ml configuration. There are no 250 ml cartridges for either Epson or HP.

More interesting of course, as you mention, is how the ink gets used. I did see that thread on Canon's ink use for cleaning and it is high, but so is Epson's - in fact very high on my 4000 and the 4800 once they get on in life. You say HP scores best of the three. Do you have any real-life user data (i.e. not official statements from HP) on the amount of ink consumed for printing, cleaning and maintenance on the HP z series? I'd be very interested to see that.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I used the 250 ml number as a rough average for the twin pack 130 ml of HP and the single Epson cart of 220 ml and the Canon 330 ml cart. The last was more expensive in the list that I had but from other sources I get the information that the price is now about 0.30 Euro a ML (without VAT) as well. The companies keep a close eye on ml ink prices per cart size it seems. Your 0.46 $ roughly corresponds to that number if the Euro<>Dollar rate is counted in. Above the 330 ML prices do not drop much per ml, the ca 700 ml carts for Canon and HP at least not and after some alarming messages here I checked the Epson 11880 carts and I thought they were the same (if memory is correct).

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20402&pid=147495&mode=threaded&show=&st=20&#entry147495]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....20&#entry147495[/url].
As written the Canon price should be lower now.

Point is you see no drop in the Z3100 cart contents according to the Printer Utility after a week idleness but with the printer on. There's no chipped waste box to replace when full either. Possibly we get a utility call one day from the printer to replace a waste box internally and an expensive service man has to deal with that but a good friend with a Canon iPF9000 is on his 4th chipped waste box and his printer is maybe 2 months older than the Z3100 that is here since early March 2007. So no figures but circumstantial evidence only. If someone has a solution to measure it correctly I'm all ears. Next time before I go on holidays I could weigh the carts and do the same when I'm back but that's the best I can offer.


Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Logged
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2007, 09:16:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ernst, I'd like to get clarity on some of what you are saying here. It is correct that price per ml varies inversely with the volume of the container. HP USA website only sells 130 ml single or twinpack. Thier website was working poorly yesterday and I ddn't get the twinpack price; now I see the single price is what I quoted yesterday, and the twinpack (2*130) USD 119, bringing the price to 46 ml - just a bit less than for my Epson 4800 in 220 ml configuration. There are no 250 ml cartridges for either Epson or HP.

More interesting of course, as you mention, is how the ink gets used. I did see that thread on Canon's ink use for cleaning and it is high, but so is Epson's - in fact very high on my 4000 and the 4800 once they get on in life. You say HP scores best of the three. Do you have any real-life user data (i.e. not official statements from HP) on the amount of ink consumed for printing, cleaning and maintenance on the HP z series? I'd be very interested to see that.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Price for twin-packs of z3100 ink is $99.99 from [a href=\"http://www.itsupplies.com/cgi-bin/itsupplies.storefront/473083e100d8ed6227404200c14c0654/UserTemplate/19]IT Supplies[/url]. Shipping is free, so each 130ml cart is $50.
Logged
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2007, 09:20:07 AM »
ReplyReply

$97.99 from Atlex
Logged

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-family:Geneva'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Regards,
Ron[/span][/span][/span][/span]
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2868


« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2007, 09:38:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You say HP scores best of the three. Do you have any real-life user data (i.e. not official statements from HP) on the amount of ink consumed for printing, cleaning and maintenance on the HP z series? I'd be very interested to see that.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


There's this review that says a few ML per week for head control:

[a href=\"http://www.dpandi.com/essays/saffir1.html]http://www.dpandi.com/essays/saffir1.html[/url]


Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3539



WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2007, 09:46:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Where Epson gets screwed is where unkowning consumers are buying cheap knockoff inks thinking there's no difference from the Epson brand ink...until their printers clog beyond fixing and expect Epson to honor their warrantees and fix or replace the printers. That is a hard cost of doing business that is caused by the use of cheap knockoff 3rd party inks. And don't think that that sort of 3rd party ink is equal to or better than the Epson ink...it ain't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150302\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've had problems with clogging on Epson printers and I've only bought Epson inks from reputable places like Amazon or Staples, so unless they are selling counterfeit inks.... Epson inks/printers are not that wonderful.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 594


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2007, 10:07:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Ink costs are crazy.
I think that epson has a right to defend their patents, but should also see that the huge interest in 3rd party inks is an obvious sign that people aren't very keen on paying so much money for ink...even if the ink is that great and archival (how many people print stuff for archival image purposes?)

Perhaps they can release two lines of ink, cheapass one for cheapass unimportant printing, and their high quality regular ones where image quality and archival needs count.

i'm a fan of canon and epson printers, the colours on their high end printers are beyond what I can achieve with c-prints alot of times...
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2007, 10:09:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've had problems with clogging on Epson printers and I've only bought Epson inks from reputable places like Amazon or Staples, so unless they are selling counterfeit inks.... Epson inks/printers are not that wonderful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In the hands of knowledgeable users the inks produce excellent prints by any professional standard, so in essence they ARE that wonderful.

Clogging is a whole different talk-show. Much has been written about this problem, including some by myself on this website. All pigment ink printers develop head clogs. You're pushing micro-particulates through holes that are nano-sized. What's different between technologies is how the issue is handled. Epson consumes ink to clean the heads. The amounts used are transparently calculable within the limits of how the Epson firmware allows one to measure ink usage. Canon printers also consume ink for head cleaning. I'm less familiar with the consumption rates and how they are measured because I don't own a CAnon printer, but there is a thread somewhere on this site which discusses it. HP's print heads are moderately priced consumables. When enough nozzles clog, you change the head.

Before running at the mouth about how less than wonderful any of these products are, just take a deep breath and look what this technology has grown to and enabled us to do over a short period of less than a decade.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2007, 10:21:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ink costs are crazy.
I think that epson has a right to defend their patents, but should also see that the huge interest in 3rd party inks is an obvious sign that people aren't very keen on paying so much money for ink...even if the ink is that great and archival (how many people print stuff for archival image purposes?)

Perhaps they can release two lines of ink, cheapass one for cheapass unimportant printing, and their high quality regular ones where image quality and archival needs count.

i'm a fan of canon and epson printers, the colours on their high end printers are beyond what I can achieve with c-prints alot of times...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Generally speaking you pay for what you get. You can pay less for third party inks and suffer the risks or enjoy the benefits depending on what the batch you get does for you.

From the invention of the science onward, longevity has been a major objective of photographic processes. Inkjet printing was of no interest to the serious professional market until Epson pioneered inkjet pigment printing on a scale consumers could afford - with the model 2000P. It had its limitations - issues of gamut, brilliance and metamerism, but it was a technological watershed for the industry, and it only got far better since - rapidly.

Do you have the technical baclground to evaluate the technical and operational implications of changing between two qualities of ink in the same machine? Apart from the fact that the hardware and the inkset are optimized for eachother, have you considered what it would mean to empty the lines of one inkset and replace it with another? Do you seriously believe that could ever be economic? Do you think it feasible to design a machine that is optimized for two qualities of ink? People including me have screamed about the issues involved with changing just ONE ink on the Epson 4800. I simply don't see that design feature being sustained over the long term.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
RogerW
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72



WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2007, 10:35:45 AM »
ReplyReply

OK - so it seems some of us (me included) reckon epson have every right to protect their interests and others don't.

Can we move on to making some photos please!
Logged
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2007, 02:55:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
OK - so it seems some of us (me included) reckon epson have every right to protect their interests and others don't.

Can we move on to making some photos please!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You forgot to add:

Can we all agree that we all think we pay too much for ink?    

Back to printing now.
Logged

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-family:Geneva'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Regards,
Ron[/span][/span][/span][/span]
dilip
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2007, 03:17:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry to continue this along, but I do feel the need to correct some misconceptions...

To Schewe's comment about needing to enforce the patent, it's a bit of confusion.  A trademark must be enforced or the rights are permanently diluted.  A patent can be enforced at the will of the owner.  However, a requirement to enforce the patent can be a result of any number of things, including the need to enforce the ITC ruling.  We could debate this point endlessly, but this is where I make my living, and I'd find you the proof if it's really important, but I'm too lazy at the moment.

Having said that, to many other people's comments, Epson has a patent.  There's no disputing that.  They developed a novel technology. They have the right to enforce it.  Full stop. If you disagree with the existence of the patent system, that's fine. But it's rather immaterial to the discussion.  If you would like to derail the copyright system, once again, it's immaterial to the discussion.  Copyright and patent protections are there for reasons.  This isn't about big corporate interests actively going out to hose the little guy.  This is about a company that has spent a fortune on developping a new technology, and is attempting to recoup their costs and make a profit.

I agree that it appears that Mr. Cone is caught up in a net that wasn't cast for him.  But caught up he is.  Epson is likely going after the people who are making knock off carts.  Their patent protections is one way of doing this.  If no one makes the chipped carts, no one can sell the chipped carts with inferior products.  If inferior product gets out under their name, their reputation takes a huge hit.  In view of that, I understand why Epson is trying to close off the avenues.

Here's the thing that no one seems to want to say out loud: when you bought your printer, you knew the cost of ink.  If you thought it was oppressive, why did you buy?  Unless it's your business, this is the cost of doing a hobby.  If it is your business, then pass the costs along.  If neither is appropriate, don't get it and complain.

I'll leave my rant at that.  I have to go pack for Australia.

--dilip
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad