Surely Epson's ban is important to most users?

[JPSabo]

Here in the States I think the issue is not just cost, but having
options, such as Jon Cone's B/W inks and printing with different inks
using the QuadtoneRIP.

I don't really have a problem with Epson protecting their patents and
investment (and also realizing that some third party inks are just
bad and can damage the printers), but I feel they could look into
some kind of licensing option that would allow third party companies
to continue to supply valuable products to their customers.

My guess is that would be the case...Epson would just sell empty cartridges to approved 3rd parties. Epson will profit, literally, from the sale of the printers intended for specialty use (eg. Piezography) as well as the cartridges. My daughter purchased the R2400 exclusively for Piezography use and there is no Epson equivalent for Piezography inks, and Piezography uses only Epson printers or the large format Roland printers.

For people who use these products, especially for fine black and
white printing, the big selling point for Epson is (or was) that it
supported these products. Now that it won't, perhaps some of those
people will look at other options like Canon or HP, though I'm sure
this is only a small part of the Epson market.

Well, I'm wondering if the success that Epson just had will provide motivation and encouragement for Canon and HP to chip their ink cartridges as well.

Still, get a bunch of lawyers involved and they're sure to muck
things up.

Best, David.

the EU can stop people like epson charging rediculas amounts of money
for ink in countries part of the EU does not affect america

--
John P. Sabo

'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

• Arthur C. Clarke -

 

[N8535Y]

Both started it.

See Epson's rant on the subject at:

http://itc.epson.com/pdf/ITC-FAQ.pdf

Bob

The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers. - Henry VI

Of course this would also eliminate most of the politicians as well.

And wouldn't that be a shame.

Maybe rhetorical question - Any info out there whether this action
was instigated by Seiko/Epson Japan or Epson America?

Inkjetfly still offering CIS systems as of now.

--
Bob

 

[oldschool]

Dave, I couldn't agree with you more.
very well put,
--
Levi Starks

 

[Camera Dog]

I am fine with it.

1. We are talking printers and ink here, not an essential like milk or fondue.

2. It is their product. Why should they support someone else making money off them? They don't owe someone a living.

 

[Camera Dog]

When a set of cartridges costs
more than the printer they fit, something is pretty off center.

No, you are confusing "cost" with "price". What you see is the "price", not the "cost". "Price" is determined by their business model In this case, sell the printers cheaply, make it up on ink.

A couple days ago I found a work around, namely a seller on ebay
selling the C120 printer for a pretty decent bid. I ended up getting
it for $50.87. I'll pull the new cartridges out of the box and keep
them to use in the C120 I have and put the printer back on ebay as
new unused but without cartridges. I'm seeing others on there with
that designation. I wouldn't be surprised if I get much of my money
back and almost free cartridges in the process.

Isn't capitalism great? You have alternatives!

Obviously if a Chinese manufacturer can design,
manufacture, fill and market the same cartridge for $4.95 Epson can
do even better.

If you support the wages and benefits they pay in the Chinese factories, I guess you support that everyone should have these practices so you can have ink at $4.95.

The truly unfortunate thing about it all is the fact that the courts
and our governments have absolutely no recognition of the absurdity
of Epson pricing and the simple fact that cartridge and ink charging
are obviously public domain products.

I don't see ANYTHING obvious that these are public domain products. What is absurd is the idea that the government should regulate what is a luxury product. We are talking home color printers here, not milk and cookies for poor kids. Let's take it one step further. Suppose Epson spent millions to develop a system to guarantee that their printers will never clog. But that requires a new cartridge design and to make it economically viable, a couple years of selling cartidges at their prices. Do you really think that those cartridges are public domain? Or that the government should require Epson to open up their printers to all competitors?

They have bowed again to the
power of a large corporation and let the consumer take the fall.

Let them regulate milk and cookie pricing and stay out of non-essential businesses. Otherwise you would never have the level of competition and choices that you have now.

 

[Scott Weierich86292]

This is INSANE. I can't believe I am hearing that some of you want to control how much Epson could charge for their products! Do you want your government to next tell YOU that you can't sell your photos for more than $x.xx per print because in their eyes and some of your customer's eyes they think you are gouging them with your prices?

Don't like Epson's prices? DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCTS! Either you find the output of prints from your Epson printer with Epson ink to be worth the expense or you don't. If you don't like Epson pricing, buy someone else's printer instead. Or have a printing company do all your prints instead. You DO have choices. You simply don't like your choices because you feel that Epson's print quality is top notch, a step above its competitors and your customers expect only the best from you when they get their prints. And if that is true, your Epson printer and Epson ink (in most cases) are helping you be successful selling your photographs which I GUARANTEE you are selling for more than just a couple of dollars a peice.

Gee, I want a Nikon D3, but I don't think it is fair that Nikon charges $5000 for this camera...I think Nikon is PRICE GOUGING me. I really want a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lens, but I think Nikon is price gouging on it too. I want the govenment authorities to step in & make Nikon lower their prices down to a price that I think is fair; about $500 for the two together.

And as for the cost of gas (an energy commodity) compared to ink (first of all you are not buying just ink, you are buying technology that includes ink among other parts and packaging)...two completely different products. Sort of like comparing the cost per pound of Yokohama tires to the cost per pound of Intel computer processors.

I use epson and canon inks and never use compatibles but $15+ for a
few ml of liquid is a real gold mine for the printer companies.

I complain about $3+ for a gallon of gas in the US, (petrol) in UK
and Europe its like £.70, €.90 litre.

But we gladly fork over many, many times that for some colored liquid.

Where is the 60 minutes, 20/20 report on this?
--
see my profile for more info
http://pbase.com/treacle

--
Scott

 

[Scott Weierich86292]

Geez, HP and Canon brand of ink are within percentage points of being the same. Get over it. Either you can afford this as a hobby or you are doing this professionally and it is built into the price you charge your customers for their photos. I do it as a hobby myself with an occassional paying gig. I spend TONS more money each year on new camera and computer equipment than I do on ink. When I think about the money I spend on traveling to rural sites to shoot; gas, oil, wear and tear, meals, drinks, bug repellant, sun screen, etc...I spend even more money on my hobby that I likely realize.

I do work part time doing Macintosh IT work for local businesses and individuals. I charge $$$ for my services. Either a customer agrees to my prices and I render services or they think I am too expensive and don't hire me. My time AND expertise (R&D) are worth X/hour to me. Either customers agree and use me or they go somewhere else. Same concept with Epson printers and Epson ink. I want the best, can afford the best and pay for the best; Epson.

By the way, Epson ink pricing has remained flat as compared to inflation over the past 8-9 years that I have been using them.

EPSON is GREEDY!

Soon no one can afford their ink. If they carry on no one will buy
their printer. And they rightfully deserves it. They are just digging
their own graves.

Wise up Epson!

--
Scott

 

[Scott Weierich86292]

Epson has EVERY right to defend their intellectual property just like you do.

See Epson's rant on the subject at:

http://itc.epson.com/pdf/ITC-FAQ.pdf

Bob

The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers. - Henry VI

Of course this would also eliminate most of the politicians as well.

And wouldn't that be a shame.

Maybe rhetorical question - Any info out there whether this action
was instigated by Seiko/Epson Japan or Epson America?

Inkjetfly still offering CIS systems as of now.

--
Bob

--
Scott

 

[Martin Anderson]

I use 3rd party inks and if I have to get them from China or Thailand I will.

Epson prices are exhobitant just like drug prices and health care are in the U.S.

Fortunately I have Medicare insurance to mitigate some of the costs or I would need to get major medical in India or Thailand.

I haven't seen Michael Moore's movie Sicko but the segments I have seen are about fascism and feudalism re health care in the US.
--
Lat 45.15N x Long. 123.97W
E1, E100 RS, 14-54 lens, 40-150 lens, grip

 

[Dave Hunt]

I'm sorry that I dont have any source for this, but I have heard recently that in 2010 the EU is supposed to be banning manufacturers from forcing printer users to use their cartridges, opening up the market to third party ink manufactureres. I don't know whether to to believe this or not, seeing as the US seems to be going in the opposite direction.

On another note, the Wilhelm research articles on third party inks are well worth reading, and shows that some third party inks are absolutely terrible compared to OEM inks, lasting just months compared to the OEM inks decades. So now I use the third party for the casual prints, and a seperate printer with genuine inks for the good stuff.
Dave.
--
http://www.davesweeklyphoto.com

 

[BrianDeveloper]

Hate to tell you Lisa but petrol in the UK is over £1 per litre (2.06$)
--
Brian

 

[Zone8]

I'm sorry that I dont have any source for this, but I have heard
recently that in 2010 the EU is supposed to be banning manufacturers
from forcing printer users to use their cartridges, opening up the
market to third party ink manufactureres. I don't know whether to to
believe this or not, seeing as the US seems to be going in the
opposite direction.

On another note, the Wilhelm research articles on third party inks
are well worth reading, and shows that some third party inks are
absolutely terrible compared to OEM inks, lasting just months
compared to the OEM inks decades. So now I use the third party for
the casual prints, and a seperate printer with genuine inks for the
good stuff.

I found, in practical tests myself over many years, that the compatible inks I used, both Epson and Canon printers, were much better than the OEM ones. There may be some inks that are not as good (but I do reject the oft quoted statement that they damage printers as every ink I have come across has met the international ISO standards) but the only reason the manufacturers have improved their inks (well, perhaps I should have said the main reason) is because manufacturers of other inks have more or less forced them to improve - and many alternative inks are still better in many respects.

Epson's inks that are any good have to be used only with Epson's specific papers to suit and that alone restricts the choice for consumers. I print on archival quality watercolour papers using third party pigmented inks (now mainly Kyson) and have nothing but praise for the end quality. When I first got my Canon i9950, I found the original Canon inks awful - faded in less than a day, on acid-free paper, in the sun, unlike other available compatibles, until I installed the current Kyson pigmented ink CIS.

I am sure, within a relatively short space of time, the manufacturers of compatible cartridges will come up with a design that will turn Epson's ruling upside down in the real world. Meantime, I think Epson have shot themselves in the foot and have certainly not endeared themselves to the majority of users of their printers.

Using alternative inks has two fundamental advantages. First is, for many, the affordable cost using compatibles. Second is the ability to use (not necessarily less expensive) inks to choice for a wide variety of reasons such as quality of output, longevity, convenience (CIS etc) and so forth. Imho, Epson would have been much wiser to have leased use of their cartridge design because in due course, they will regret their actions when the manufacturers come up with alternatives, as I am sure they will - they have, after all, shown much skill and ingenuity in the past. Even the spongeless cartridges are a vast improvement on Epson's foam filled ones, so does one assume it's the chip that is really the basis for the patent infringement claims?

Zone8

The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS

 

[Robert Hoffman]

Inkjetfly still offering CIS systems as of now.

I emailed them about this and they claim to be unaffected. Sooner or
later, the hammer will drop.

Rob

--
'Don't sneak up on it - surround it'

 

[RDKirk]

2. It is their product. Why should they support someone else making money off them? They don't owe someone a living.

This is like saying nobody except auto manufacturers should sell replacement car parts.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[RDKirk]

Or that the government should require Epson to open up their printers to all competitors?

The government is not "opening up" anything. The government is closing out competition. If the government did NOTHING (i.e., if the government did not regulate the market) then independent ink manufacturers would be free to act.

Epson is calling on the government to take action to prevent independent ink manufacturers from operating.

Your perception of the government's role is 180 degrees backward.
--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[RDKirk]

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[Juvandes]

What a beauty !!!!!!!!!!

Some years ago, (and still going), all the world, went after Microsoft because they don't want to open up Windows codes to everyone. They lost , they pay and the product become public domain.
Epson is selling a product, manufactered in China, at prices of North America,

with quality below average, and if was not the third part inks, would never reach most of the costumers.

 

[Tom Monego]

In a way Epson was up against the wall. There is a group out of China (I believe, have heard Russian mafia too) that was making counterfeit ink and marketing it in boxes saying genuine Epson. The ink was bogus. Since the ink was not similar at all, nothing could be done on that front, they had no success in getting the Chinese government to do anything, this was their last resort. It does have a monopolistic aire to it we will have to see what can be done. No doubt the ink is probably over priced, but selling anything in 5-15ml quantities is expensive to do. Epson does do significant R&D on its ink. The only good thing that can be said is that Epson makes an excellent product. As a former 3rd party ink user I beleive users should have a choice. But I do think Epson was between a rock and a hard place. Unless we start to see bad HP and Canon ink showing up I wouyldn't think they would go in the direction.

Those in the US I have always looked at Atlex and ITSupplies to get close to the best price available. Staples drains your wallet with it's ink prices.

Tom

 

[RDKirk]

There is a group out of China (I believe, have heard Russian mafia too) that was making counterfeit ink and marketing it in boxes saying genuine Epson.

Epson's legal actions have NOTHING to do with counterfeit products. Counterfeit products are already flatly illegal.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[avantluddite]

Still, get a bunch of lawyers involved and they're sure to muck
things up.

Best, David.

the EU can stop people like epson charging rediculas amounts of money
for ink in countries part of the EU does not affect america

--
John P. Sabo

'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

• Arthur C. Clarke -

Canon individual ink cart printers are already chipped. Epson's success in this will bring all parties aboard.

"This is a country of the attorneys, by the attorneys, for the attorneys" - Neuropolitics