4 ms·

To my paranoid side that raises an interesting question. They have the ability to know when approved labels are used in the device. They could just reject them

To my paranoid side that raises an interesting question. They have the ability to know when approved labels are used in the device. They could just reject them, creating all kinds of bad publicity. Or they could degrade output quality on "unapproved" mediums then say earnestly, "This lack of quality is why we recommend using only Genuine Dynamo Labels®. Buy some today!"

yrro 10y ago
You know, I'd be fine with the printer detecting the use of 3rd party ink cartridges and signalling this fact to the computer, so that a warning C n be displayed, as long as the printer and driver don't use that information to deliberately degrade the output. And I'm not necessarily against using that information to void the warranty too.
- jhayward 10y ago
  > And I'm not necessarily against using that information to void the warranty too. In the US a manufacturer can't use a simple indicator like "you broke the seal" or "that's not an Original Manufacturer cartridge" to void a warranty. A warranty may only be voided if the specific act involved was the actual proximal cause of the failure of the product. Anyone who tries to use "that voids the warranty" is usually just trying to invoke FUD with no legal standing.
  - theaustinseven 10y ago
    I've never heard this, could you provide some sort of evidence of this? I was always under the impression that warranties were purely manufacturer defined and could be voided for any reason the manufacturer stated up front.
    - jhayward 10y ago
      The Magnussen-Moss Warranty Act [1] lays out many requirements and terms of reference for warranties in the US. One specific requirement: "Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[7] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions,[8] and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives." [Wikipedia] Edit: Additionally, the onus is on the manufacturer to prove that a non-OEM part or service was the proximal cause of a warrantied failure. They don't get to put it back on you without proving their case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Yeah, the problem with that was how quickly manufacturers used that to get out of any problem. "Our records show that you had the oil changed at a third party, which we do not support. As a result, we are unable to repair [unrelated powertrain failure] under warranty."

yrro 10y ago

You know, I'd be fine with the printer detecting the use of 3rd party ink cartridges and signalling this fact to the computer, so that a warning C n be displayed, as long as the printer and driver don't use that information to deliberately degrade the output. And I'm not necessarily against using that information to void the warranty too.

jhayward 10y ago
> And I'm not necessarily against using that information to void the warranty too. In the US a manufacturer can't use a simple indicator like "you broke the seal" or "that's not an Original Manufacturer cartridge" to void a warranty. A warranty may only be voided if the specific act involved was the actual proximal cause of the failure of the product. Anyone who tries to use "that voids the warranty" is usually just trying to invoke FUD with no legal standing.
- theaustinseven 10y ago
  I've never heard this, could you provide some sort of evidence of this? I was always under the impression that warranties were purely manufacturer defined and could be voided for any reason the manufacturer stated up front.
  - jhayward 10y ago
    The Magnussen-Moss Warranty Act [1] lays out many requirements and terms of reference for warranties in the US. One specific requirement: "Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[7] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions,[8] and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives." [Wikipedia] Edit: Additionally, the onus is on the manufacturer to prove that a non-OEM part or service was the proximal cause of a warrantied failure. They don't get to put it back on you without proving their case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
FireBeyond 10y ago
Yeah, the problem with that was how quickly manufacturers used that to get out of any problem. "Our records show that you had the oil changed at a third party, which we do not support. As a result, we are unable to repair [unrelated powertrain failure] under warranty."