9 ms·
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
by 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 agoRight, 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 agoHP also talks about dynamic security upfront in their documentation and marketing materials.
- kevviiinn 3y agoAre non-HP cartridges a vector for hacking? If not then what does that have to do with security?
- emodendroket 3y agoHonestly 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 agoI'm skeptical that a deceptive euphemism somehow makes this less of a deceptive trade practice.
- emodendroket 3y agoAt 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.