5 ms·

Could Lexmark argue that they're not really selling the cartridges to you, but are instead leasing them for an indeterminate period of time?

distances 9y ago
I think you'd then have to enter some kind of a lease agreement, which would be a big turn-off for customers that would like to just buy a replacement cartridge without signing a contract.
- jawns 9y ago
  1) As with many of the tricks that printer companies use to dissuade people from buying off-brand inks, if enough printer manufacturers did it, consumers might find that they have few other options -- especially if they've had poor luck with third-party inks. 2) I pay $3 a month for HP's Instant Ink program. It allows me to print up to 50 full-color pages a month with my inkjet printer, and when one of the cartridges is running low, it automatically sends a replacement. It's not significantly more expensive, in my case (low-volume usage), than buying the ink cartridges directly, but it's a lot more convenient. I'm not quite sure if it technically counts as a leasing program, but it follows a similar ethos. So I wouldn't so easily dismiss the idea that a leasing program would lead to a consumer backlash.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    And then what happens if the consumer just ignores the lease and sells it anyway? They tell the company "I threw it away". People throwing used printer cartridges away would probably happen a lot, anyway, right? Technically it would break the contract but the issue is that it would be very difficult to enforce.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    1. This seems like collusion would be necessary 2. I have to think it's pretty hard to establish that a consumable is subject to a lease. What is returned at the end of the lease?
Spivak 9y ago
Potentially, but if challenged the courts would see right past a company taking away customer rights by shifting words around and rule that such an indefinite lease was ownership.
desdiv 9y ago
I don't think consumers will bother with anything that hassle-some: Lexmark: "For $20 you can lease one of our fine cartridges for an indeterminate period of time. Just need your signature on page 2, 5, and 6 of this contract." Canon, Panasonic, HP, Xerox: "You give me $20; I give you cartridge."
- bluGill 9y ago
  The problem is the cartridge is a significant cost. If Lexmark gets the cartridge back and refills it their costs are lower than their competition. There is a reason HP sends a free shipping return label with all their cartridges: it isn't about being green (though that is a nice bonus), it is about recycling.
  - test6554 9y ago
    Maybe Lexmark could say, give us $140 per month and we will ship you a new cartridge every month with a return label. For every cartridge you ship back, you get a $20 credit on your monthly bill. Then adjust the amount of ink or timing until it is just right for each company.

distances 9y ago

I think you'd then have to enter some kind of a lease agreement, which would be a big turn-off for customers that would like to just buy a replacement cartridge without signing a contract.

jawns 9y ago
1) As with many of the tricks that printer companies use to dissuade people from buying off-brand inks, if enough printer manufacturers did it, consumers might find that they have few other options -- especially if they've had poor luck with third-party inks. 2) I pay $3 a month for HP's Instant Ink program. It allows me to print up to 50 full-color pages a month with my inkjet printer, and when one of the cartridges is running low, it automatically sends a replacement. It's not significantly more expensive, in my case (low-volume usage), than buying the ink cartridges directly, but it's a lot more convenient. I'm not quite sure if it technically counts as a leasing program, but it follows a similar ethos. So I wouldn't so easily dismiss the idea that a leasing program would lead to a consumer backlash.
- stale2002 9y ago
  And then what happens if the consumer just ignores the lease and sells it anyway? They tell the company "I threw it away". People throwing used printer cartridges away would probably happen a lot, anyway, right? Technically it would break the contract but the issue is that it would be very difficult to enforce.
- rhizome 9y ago
  1. This seems like collusion would be necessary 2. I have to think it's pretty hard to establish that a consumable is subject to a lease. What is returned at the end of the lease?

Spivak 9y ago

Potentially, but if challenged the courts would see right past a company taking away customer rights by shifting words around and rule that such an indefinite lease was ownership.

desdiv 9y ago

I don't think consumers will bother with anything that hassle-some: Lexmark: "For $20 you can lease one of our fine cartridges for an indeterminate period of time. Just need your signature on page 2, 5, and 6 of this contract." Canon, Panasonic, HP, Xerox: "You give me $20; I give you cartridge."

bluGill 9y ago
The problem is the cartridge is a significant cost. If Lexmark gets the cartridge back and refills it their costs are lower than their competition. There is a reason HP sends a free shipping return label with all their cartridges: it isn't about being green (though that is a nice bonus), it is about recycling.
- test6554 9y ago
  Maybe Lexmark could say, give us $140 per month and we will ship you a new cartridge every month with a return label. For every cartridge you ship back, you get a $20 credit on your monthly bill. Then adjust the amount of ink or timing until it is just right for each company.