New P700 and P900 : Explicit Note about aftermarket inks ?

On the following site Vistek ( Toronto, Canada) I am seeing a statement I have not seen before.



Now look in the "ink Cartridge Life" line

Printer is designed for use with Epson cartridges only, not third-party cartridges or ink

If that is not explicit, there is absolutely no ambiguity about the interpretation of the statement. It's right there on the table.

So should one interpret the statement with another interpretation?

I think there is a lot of ambiguity. Of *course* it's 'designed' for Epson cartridges only. Epson was NEVER going to 'design' it to take 3rd party stuff. Whether Epson actively put in place techno. controls to prevent 3rd party carts/ink usage is a totally different story/statement.

It took a long time for them to figure out how to use 3rd party carts on the P800. I assume it'll be same or worse.

mikling said:

......

Printer is designed for use with Epson cartridges only, not third-party cartridges or ink

......

Click to expand...

I am not sure why you find this of importance. Of course, Epson (or Canon) does not want you to use third party inks or cartridges. They make a large amount of money on ink not on the printer sales.

Epson has been especially thorough in trying to prevent use of third party supplies. It has become necessary to hack the software or to add an additional control board in order to use third patty supplies. Even with older printers such as the 3800 or 3880, special chips along with OEM cartridge chips were needed to bypass the controls.

mikling said:

On the following site Vistek ( Toronto, Canada) I am seeing a statement I have not seen before.

https://www.vistek.ca/store/439587/epson-surecolor-p900-printer#Specs

https://www.vistek.ca/store/439586/epson-surecolor-p700-printer#Specs

Now look in the "ink Cartridge Life" line

Printer is designed for use with Epson cartridges only, not third-party cartridges or ink

Click to expand...

✔

It just clarifies that you will void the warranty if the user goes outside what the printer was designed for and this includes the ink and cartridges.

Third party carts still cannot be used on the P800 in NA.

The only way is to modify the firmware. Firmware access is so easily blocked, it's like child's play. Well children hack these days but you get the idea. Access to firmware is easily restricted if a designer chose to do so in the first place.

They have previously never come out and said such. The assumption that the past can carry on to the future is assumed. It is an assumption as opposed to an outright message to the purchaser. Prior they would indicate best performance and reliability is with OEM but you could still access and use third party. This is different.

It never indicates voiding warranty. I did not see that. Is that an assumption because of personal expectation?

mikling said:

.....Prior they would indicate best performance and reliability is with OEM but you could still access and use third party. This is different.

Click to expand...

This is no different than anything I have seen in the past. BTW, the Vistek information you included did not include the footnote which appears on the Epson specs:

"* This product uses only genuine Epson-brand cartridges. Other brands of ink cartridges and ink supplies are not compatible and, even if described as compatible, may not function properly or at all."

Sure other brands of ink cartridges may not function properly. Epson does all it can to try to make that true.

I don't know about Canada but in the US the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does not allow a manufacturer to withdraw warranty coverage for using third-party parts, unless they can prove the parts were defective *and* damaged the unit. Also, ambiguous parts of a warranty are by law construed along the interpretation least favorable to the drafter of the warranty.

--
Fazal Majid (www.majid.info)

mikling said:

mikling said:

It just clarifies that you will void the warranty if the user goes outside what the printer was designed for and this includes the ink and cartridges.

Click to expand...

It never indicates voiding warranty. I did not see that. Is that an assumption because of personal expectation?

Click to expand...

It very probably depends on the jurisdiction. In the U.S., Epson will probably take the position that if your printer has a problem and you used any third-party cartridges and/or ink, then the burden is on you to prove that the third-party cartridges and/or ink played no role in the problem, or else they will not repair it under warranty, or maybe even at all.

My impression / vague semi-understanding is that in the E.U., legally Epson would have the burden of proving that the third-party cartridges and/or ink played a role in causing the problem. Also, in the E.U. it may not be legal for Epson to try to lock out third-party cartridges and/or inks.

All else being equal, the more the jurisdiction's laws shift certain costs from the buyer to the manufacturer, the higher the prices the manufacturer will charge in that jurisdiction. Of course, many other factors also affect local prices.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

It very probably depends on the jurisdiction. In the U.S., Epson will probably take the position that if your printer has a problem and you used any third-party cartridges and/or ink, then the burden is on you to prove that the third-party ink played no role in the problem, or else they will not repair it under warranty, or maybe even at all.

Click to expand...

No, that's illegal under the Magnuson-Moss Act (15 U.S. Code § 2302 (c) )

There is an exemption, but it requires getting approval from the FTC after public comment, the burden is very much on Epson. That's why they use technological measures like DRM chips to go around that

--
Fazal Majid (www.majid.info)

Fazal Majid said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

It very probably depends on the jurisdiction. In the U.S., Epson will probably take the position that if your printer has a problem and you used any third-party cartridges and/or ink, then the burden is on you to prove that the third-party ink played no role in the problem, or else they will not repair it under warranty, or maybe even at all.

Click to expand...

No, that's illegal under the Magnuson-Moss Act (15 U.S. Code § 2302 (c) )

There is an exemption, but it requires getting approval from the FTC after public comment, the burden is very much on Epson. That's why they use technological measures like DRM chips to go around that

Click to expand...

Be prepared for a legal fight.

Wait, was there a fight over the SureColor P800?

Kaj E said:

Be prepared for a legal fight.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's one thing the Europeans get right, government agencies equivalent to the FTC actively investigate and litigate these kind of abuses, e.g. the French competition watchdog investigating Apple's batterygate and fining them. They also have consumer unions that go after corporations. We Americans rely too much on lawyers and class-action lawsuits to keep them in line.

mikling said:

It never indicates voiding warranty. I did not see that. Is that an assumption because of personal expectation?

Click to expand...

A person purchases a printer (Epson P900 or P700) and then installs third party inks and/or third party cartridges and the print head clogs or leaks resulting in the printer being sent in for repairs under warranty. I believe that if, in the instruction to set up printer, it clearly states printer is not designed for third party inks, It voids Epson warranty to pay for repairs -if the inks/cartridges were the cause of damage.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53508796 (This quote is regarding the Canon Pro 100 but shows that mixing OEM and third party ink can cause serious issues.)

"The Precision Color [third-party] refill ink is highly regarded on this forum. But there is a problem with the yellow cartridge. You cannot refill it without thoroughly flushing it first. Otherwise, it will clog and create all sorts of problems. As a remedy, Precision Color offers a yellow cartridge with their refill kits."

It seems obvious. You don't need to be a lawyer going into a courtroom -Europe or the U.S.- to see that. Certain inks (yellow ink in particular) will jell if mixed with OEM ink. Yes, Epson has a financial advantage to sell OEM ink cartridges but this clearly stated limitation on non-OEM ink and cartridges does seem obvious for their own financial protection when a printer is damaged as a result of third party inks and or cartridges.

Fazal Majid said:

Fazal Majid said:

It very probably depends on the jurisdiction. In the U.S., Epson will probably take the position that if your printer has a problem and you used any third-party cartridges and/or ink, then the burden is on you to prove that the third-party ink played no role in the problem, or else they will not repair it under warranty, or maybe even at all.

Click to expand...

No, that's illegal under the Magnuson-Moss Act (15 U.S. Code § 2302 (c) )

There is an exemption, but it requires getting approval from the FTC after public comment, the burden is very much on Epson. That's why they use technological measures like DRM chips to go around that

Click to expand...

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on Magnuson-Moss and how it is interpreted.

That said:

* having a technical legal right is often far removed from having a practical remedy.

* There have been more that a few reports of Canon, Epson, and/or HP refusing to even repair printers that had been used with third-party ink.

* I suspect that e.g. Canon would take the position that one of their "Pro" printers is not a "consumer product" under Magnuson-Moss.

* What 15 U.S.C. § 2302(c) says is, "No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name ...." If Epson or Canon says, 'Your printer failed because you used that inferior-quality third party ink and/or cartridge, so you voided your warranty,' and they are in fact correct about that, then they have in no way violated Magnuson-Moss. And the anecdotal evidence suggests that third-party inks and cartridges tend to cause more problems than do OEM ones. So the practical question gets to be, who is to say they're wrong? Your asserting it is not likely to get you anywhere with them.

So you're going to initiate some legal proceeding against Epson over a printer whose total value brand new is under $1200? IMO, it's probably not a practical remedy. Maybe I'm wrong, and of course YMMV.

High quality 3rd party inks have been available for a great many years. Perhaps there are some very cheap inks that cause issues but that it not the case if you do a little research and pick a reputable brand.

Using 3rd party inks almost always means buying refillable cartridges. If there is a need for a warranty repair, then I would save and reinstall the original OEM cartridges before arranging for a repair or replacement.

jrkliny said:

High quality 3rd party inks have been available for a great many years. Perhaps there are some very cheap inks that cause issues but that it not the case if you do a little research and pick a reputable brand.

Using 3rd party inks almost always means buying refillable cartridges.

Click to expand...

I agree that there are third-party inks that are unlikely to damage your printer. My impression is that third-party cartridges are more of a mixed bag, and, e.g., Jtoolman warns against them for certain printers. But it seems clear that whether it's due to user failure to follow refilling instructions, user carelessness in refilling, the properties of the third-party ink, the properties of the third-party cartridges, or some combination of them, problems with printers using third-party ink and/or cartridges are more common than problems with printers using OEM ink and cartridges. Epson and Canon know all of this. There are reports of Epson and Canon refusing to work on printers due to the use of third-party ink and/or cartridges. If that happens to you, as a practical matter, what is your remedy?

You may choose to use third-party materials and refill anyway, but that's just one of the realities about which we all must make decisions.

jrkliny said:

If there is a need for a warranty repair, then I would save and reinstall the original OEM cartridges before arranging for a repair or replacement.

Click to expand...

If the repair center does not detect the prior use of non-OEM ink and/or cartridges--IIRC some of these printers have been known to warn of that at the time of use, so at least some of them may well contain an internal record of it--and/or if you lie about that if asked, then that may get the printer repaired.

IMO, just things to consider.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

I agree that there are third-party inks that are unlikely to damage your printer. My impression is that third-party cartridges are more of a mixed bag, and, e.g., Jtoolman warns against them for certain printers.......

Click to expand...

I am sure there can be some issues. I have seen two on my 3880. First I had to replace one of the refillable cartridges which developed a leak after years of use. I keep a spare just in case that happens again. After 7 years and countless refills I can live with the possible need to replace a cartridge or even an entire set of them.

The second issue is potentially serious. The Inkjetmall cartridges tend to stick in the printer. Sometimes I just push the release lever a couple of times and the cartridges come right out. If not, I slide in a 1/2" strip of thin, stiff plastic I cut from a shrink wrap package. It pushes down on the cartridge chip to free it from pushing up on the sensor. Without the plastic strip or taking time to jiggle and work out the cartridge, I suspect someone with no patience could damage the sensor making the printer inoperable.

The downsides are way more than worth it. Ink cost savings have paid for my printer many times over. Refillable carts are also important for printer maintenance, at least for the way I use the printer. The 3880 and most Epson photo printers have a single head and a switching valve to select either black ink for matte paper or black ink for coated paper. That valve tends to fail because the users often do not switch back and forth frequently enough to prevent gunk from forming. I only use one ink type and have the other side loaded up with cleaning solution. I also travel for several months every year or so. It is a really bad practice to leave a printer unused for months on end. The print head, dampers, and valves can clog up with ink precipitates. I leave my machine with all the cartridges, supply lines and print head filled with cleaning solution. When I return, I have an entirely clean machine. I even wonder if I should do this cleaning once a year even if I do not travel.