3 ms·

HP can't make amends. They simply need to be sued for anti-competitive practices and violations of the Magnusson-Moss anti-tying provisions.

cmurf 10y ago
I've heard this before, but I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have compelled any printer companies to stop this practice of tying their brand ink to the printer. I'm pretty sure Magnusson-Moss says you can't void warranties, in effect it's not legal to shift liability or burden proof, to disadvantage the consumer. In the case of printers, the warranty is not voided by using 3rd party ink, what they've basically done is add DRM to their printer where it won't use 3rd party ink. So now the consumer is in this position where if they could get the printer to use 3rd party ink, and the printer dies, the printer company can't void the warranty due to 3rd party ink; but because of DRM and DMCA chances are the user can't legally compel the printer to use 3rd party ink anyway.
- lightedman 10y ago
  "I've heard this before, but I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have compelled any printer companies to stop this practice of tying their brand ink to the printer." Why do you think I said they need to be sued for such a thing? Specifically because nobody has, yet. I know what HP does Re: their product; I've worked for them in the laptop repair department handling the water damage claims. Let me tell you, they did EVERYTHING they could to get out of honoring warranty and paid-for user damage warranty extensions. I'll guarantee you the second someone tries to return the printer for being defective and HP discovers that they used a 3rd-party cartridge, they'll try to get out of the warranty claim. The Magnusson-Moss act specifically states "Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the warranty cannot be conditioned to a specific brand of parts, services or vehicle modifications unless those parts or services are provided free of charge." HP charges for the ink carts. I would bet a good attorney would make this a simple case.

cmurf 10y ago

I've heard this before, but I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have compelled any printer companies to stop this practice of tying their brand ink to the printer. I'm pretty sure Magnusson-Moss says you can't void warranties, in effect it's not legal to shift liability or burden proof, to disadvantage the consumer. In the case of printers, the warranty is not voided by using 3rd party ink, what they've basically done is add DRM to their printer where it won't use 3rd party ink. So now the consumer is in this position where if they could get the printer to use 3rd party ink, and the printer dies, the printer company can't void the warranty due to 3rd party ink; but because of DRM and DMCA chances are the user can't legally compel the printer to use 3rd party ink anyway.

lightedman 10y ago
"I've heard this before, but I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have compelled any printer companies to stop this practice of tying their brand ink to the printer." Why do you think I said they need to be sued for such a thing? Specifically because nobody has, yet. I know what HP does Re: their product; I've worked for them in the laptop repair department handling the water damage claims. Let me tell you, they did EVERYTHING they could to get out of honoring warranty and paid-for user damage warranty extensions. I'll guarantee you the second someone tries to return the printer for being defective and HP discovers that they used a 3rd-party cartridge, they'll try to get out of the warranty claim. The Magnusson-Moss act specifically states "Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the warranty cannot be conditioned to a specific brand of parts, services or vehicle modifications unless those parts or services are provided free of charge." HP charges for the ink carts. I would bet a good attorney would make this a simple case.