3 ms·

Step one would probably be making this practice illegal in the first place, which, as far as I can tell, it isn't. Putting the cart before the horse to worry a

Step one would probably be making this practice illegal in the first place, which, as far as I can tell, it isn't. Putting the cart before the horse to worry about who's liable for doing something legal.

torstenvl 3y ago
Not my practice area, and I don't know all the facts. But if they sold printers and later disable those printers, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to treat that as a fraud or swindle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, or as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under 15 U.S.C. § 45. If this were anything other than tech - if, say, IKEA sold you a bed frame that disintegrated the moment you used a non-IKEA mattress or comforter - I don't think the government would be so blasé about it. (EDIT: Perhaps less of a case if the printer merely won't work with those cartridges rather than actually being disabled.)
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Right, it doesn’t seem quite analogous if you can resolve the problem by getting the approved ink again. Which is the case here.
- ryao 3y ago
  HP also talks about dynamic security upfront in their documentation and marketing materials.
  - kevviiinn 3y ago
    Are non-HP cartridges a vector for hacking? If not then what does that have to do with security?
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      Honestly I wouldn’t be shocked but I don’t think cheap inkjet printers are a high enough value target that you’d see that in the wild a lot.
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    I'm skeptical that a deceptive euphemism somehow makes this less of a deceptive trade practice.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      At the end of the day I'm not sure that a lock that prevents you from using non-authorized equipment/refills/whatever is very different from established practice. If they bricked the printer altogether sure, that'd be a new frontier, and it seems like many commenters have erroneously understood that to be the story, but that's not what's going on.

torstenvl 3y ago

Not my practice area, and I don't know all the facts. But if they sold printers and later disable those printers, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to treat that as a fraud or swindle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, or as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under 15 U.S.C. § 45. If this were anything other than tech - if, say, IKEA sold you a bed frame that disintegrated the moment you used a non-IKEA mattress or comforter - I don't think the government would be so blasé about it. (EDIT: Perhaps less of a case if the printer merely won't work with those cartridges rather than actually being disabled.)

emodendroket 3y ago
Right, it doesn’t seem quite analogous if you can resolve the problem by getting the approved ink again. Which is the case here.
ryao 3y ago
HP also talks about dynamic security upfront in their documentation and marketing materials.
- kevviiinn 3y ago
  Are non-HP cartridges a vector for hacking? If not then what does that have to do with security?
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Honestly I wouldn’t be shocked but I don’t think cheap inkjet printers are a high enough value target that you’d see that in the wild a lot.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  I'm skeptical that a deceptive euphemism somehow makes this less of a deceptive trade practice.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    At the end of the day I'm not sure that a lock that prevents you from using non-authorized equipment/refills/whatever is very different from established practice. If they bricked the printer altogether sure, that'd be a new frontier, and it seems like many commenters have erroneously understood that to be the story, but that's not what's going on.