It was quite a long post, you probably missed the bits where I was calling for honest real print cost comparisons to be published.
what about 3D printed ink
HP’s problem is that they don’t make any money on printers, and are entirely reliant on selling ink and toner cartridges to turn a profit. Rather than adapt their business model to new realities, they’re trying to force new realities to conform to their business model. It’s a losing move for a business to make.
6 Likes
If you are still using cartridges, do yourself a favour and search ebay for continuous ink system [insert your printer model].
I did this over a year ago and the kids have been printing with abandonment, still half the ink left and when it runs out it will be around £5 to refill the lot. Turned a printer that had been sat idle for years into a usable item.
1 Like
It’s a default on a lot of wifi/USB printers. They’re set up as a simple access point that you connect to with your computer so you can configure the printer to then connect to your own wifi router. Doing so disabled the AP broadcast. If someone just connects to it with a USB or ethernet cable and never turns off the wifi radio, it broadcasts forever.
I’ll leave the implications of having open or default-password-protected access to another person’s printer to the reader.
1 Like
There’s also no “bait-and-switch” here. Seriously. Show me one place
where HP promised that you could use non-HP certified ink cartridges
and/or ink. Please. I really want to see it.
Your argument is premised on a belief that consumers know up-front that HP printers can only use HP cartridges.
Given that HP purportedly undertook the “self-destructing” approach at issue here as a response to third-party cartridges that appears to not be the case.
So, if HP is aware that consumers are buying & using third-party cartridges then the onus is on HP, not consumers, to explicitly state that HP printers will only run on HP cartridges. This is a significant limitation and HP would disclose this on their packaging and in the marketing of these printers. By sufficiently disclosing this limitation then consumers are empowered to decide: to purchase a competitior’s printer; to wait until HP printers are inexpensive enough to jusitfy this limitation; or to do without.
Absent this up-front disclosure, if HP sells a product that they know consumers are using with third-party cartridges and have unilaterally removed this “feature” it could open them up to charges of unfair business practices and subsequent consumer fraud actions.
Of course HP could argue that consumers have no expectation that their printers will work with third-party cartridges but if that is true then HP will have a difficult time explaining why they have engaged in the subterfuge at issue here.
As far as I know HP might be making this necessary disclosure already - they might be clearly and conspicuously disclosing this on their packaging and in their marketing - but if they are not then I would see this as a problem for HP because in the minds of consumers, those purchasers of HP printers are paying for features which are missing, having been deliberately removed by the manufacturer.
3 Likes
I’m almost positive they would try to upsell me a new magenta cartridge (even though I already have one on hand from when I first received the “TONER LOW” message.)
1 Like
Cool story. Can you point to case law that supports this?
Only being partially snarky, I’m also genuinely curious. If there’s a legal precedent for this statement then I’ll eat my words.
In the US we have the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. Car warranties cannot be voided merely by having scheduled maintenance provided by 3d parties, nor even by using 3d party parts.
Manufacturers in the US are now trying, as HP is doing in this case, to use draconian copyright law that protects digital rights management to prevent product owners from using their rights under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, which applies to more than just cars.
2 Likes
There are a couple of things that I said in the quoted text and it’s not clear which part you are questioning but, in the U.S., this issue should generally fall under an individual state’s “Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices” statute(s) which themselves, are based on the FTC Act.
(Consumers might also have a claim for “unjust enrichment” under contract law but applying deceptive practices would likely be better for consumers as some states provide for ‘enhanced’ damages, include legal fees, etc.)
If you are interested you can read a 2009 survey of these laws as adopted in each state here ( https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/report_50_states.pdf ) but generally are intended for “protecting consumers from predatory, deceptive, and unscrupulous business practices.”
My original point is that if HP has knowledge that consumers believe they are buying a printer which can use third-party cartridges then HP should correct that misunderstanding and that failure to do so might be deceptive or unfair.
However, as with everything dealing with the law the above has some caveats.
For one, if consumers believe this to be true then the belief should be “reasonable” (which allows for a jury to determine reasonableness). For another, it might have to be shown that HP is knowingly profiting from this misunderstanding (e.g. through higher sales or greater market capture).
For much deeper diving (with case law cites) this 2011 ABA article covers several aspects of how this law, and its application by states, has evolved. The focus here is B2B but much of the underlying info should be applicable to consumers: http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/businesstorts/articles/fall2011-unfair-deceptive-trade-practice-act-claims.html
1 Like
So would you say that by breaking compatibility with something they never had any explicit support for (nor had any obligation to support) meets this bar? I’m not convinced.
To me this would be like being able to sue Apple every time they release an update that defeats jailbreaks.
More like suing Sony for retroactively removing Linux compatibility via an “update” to PlayStation.
1 Like
My wallet can only afford such a small fraction of a single vote as to be effectively disenfranchised.
No. That statement was deliberately predicated on:
(1) HP having knowledge of said consumer use; and
(2) an unfair impact to consumers due to an implicit misrepresentation of what purchasers are purchasing.
(And when you re-stated this in your Apple example with “explicit support” the implication is that implicit support does not matter; it might! Additionally, Apple would have a strong argument that ‘jail breaking’ actually reduces the value of its product as one of its phone’s foundational features is its walled garden).
Back to the HP example, these conditions are presumed above as illustrations in order to make the point of who should bear the burden if we accept that those conditions exist; that does not mean though that the conditions actually do exist (for example, among other things, see above: “if HP is aware…”).
(And as seen in the ABA article it’s not only consumers who could bring an action but competitors could as well.)
PS: The intention of this series of posts is not to provide a legal basis for any action but rather point out the legal concepts at play here in order to respond to the post in which you placed a burden on the consumer which should instead be borne by the manufacturer.
Generally speaking, in order to support consumer faith in the marketplace the law supports fair dealing. As such, it strives to protect those who they see as more vulnerable. Consumers are generally more vulnerable as they are generally less privvy to knowledge about a product than the manufacturers of that product.
Your post referring to which party carries this burden had that burden on the wrong shoulders; generally, the onus is on the party who has superior bargaining ability to carry that burden. This is generally going to be the manufacterer (HP here).
PPS: Pretty much every sentence above can be unpacked and dissected in ways through which one could find loopholes and exceptions large enough to ride a large-animal-of-your-choice. However, the intention is not to provide a rulebook but instead a guidebook as to the legal concepts at play and their public policy implications.
3 Likes
Not the same at all. Sony originally shipped with Linux compatibility and touted this as a feature only to remove it later. HP never guaranteed or promised compatibility with aftermarket ink before removing support.
Understood. I appreciate your seemingly well-informed perspective here. However my intent was never to blame the consumer but instead to propose a counterargument that HP can/should do anything here. I feel I’ve been quite clear in that I don’t stand by HP’s actions but I also don’t think they were necessarily wrong in what they did. Definitely unethical, though.
Well, I expected just now to have been upbraided for not praising the EFF Demands list rather than changing the woof on the (unprinted, one expects) sign & share component.
1 Like
And the idea of a dental dam (in lieu of a proxy fund) between what HP did and Strict Liability Doctrines now exists. Everyone make paper crafts from shareholder ballot packets to celebrate!
1 Like
I believe the actual wording is
"HP printers work best with HP consumables"
, which is very different from
"HP printers work only with HP consumables"
2 Likes
Well if you can’t afford a printer than you cannot really be hit by their suppression of 3rd party inks than, can’t you?
I can afford one. But my purchase twice a decade is such an infinitesimal part of the MARKET, wallet voting is pointless.
1 Like
