Epson's not so 'smart', smart chip.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/31623.html

 

I'm waiting for the chip that detect non-Epson papers and prevents

the printer from working.

Great idea Scott! Thanks for the tip! We will get the engineers working on it right

away! We will also get another team of techs working on a way to prevent Canon and

HP cameras from working with our printers as those companies compete with us in

the printer market. After they finish with that, that team will go after our

competitors in the scanner market. The big bosses really love this idea of yours and

the way we have extended it. After all, Microsoft does business this way and look

where it got them! Wow! Really: thanks a billion (or two)<P>Sincerely,<P>The Epson

marketing team.

"Meanwhile, numerous companies are selling chip resetters for Epson cartridges, which programme the chips to factory specs, showing full ink levels and providing the same number of cycles as when the chip was new, but they are costly."<br />

Oh yes, terribly expensive... <A HREF="http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/qb7.html">http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/qb7.html</A>... 20-bucks.

Dear Epson Marketing Team,<P>

 

Thank you for your offer, but currently I'm turning down work (contrary to a depressed technology industry), and don't have time to take on more project leads.<P>

 

As a technical note, please be aware Microsoft does not build PC hardware and has the largest independant 3rd party installed software base of any platform. You may wish to contact ex-Apple hardware engineers who pioneered the craft of locking out platform competitors, and yet simultaneuosly created the delusion in their their user base that their loss of market share was caused by Microsoft.<P>

 

regards,<br>

S Eaton Consulting and Business Platform Analyst

Whether it is in Epson's business interests or not to prevent 3rd-party inks or cartridges being used in their printers should be for Epson <U>and only Epson</U> to decide. In my opinion the role of the government w.r.t. to consumer protection should be to protect consumers from dangerous products and to prevent fraudulent advertising claims. They <I>may</I> have a case against Epson in the latter instance if Epson is advertising that the chipped cartridges only serve to detect ink levels but don't prevent refilling if that's not really true. But I've never seen any ad by Epson making reference to the chips.<P>

 

Laws by the EU requiring printer makers to allow 3rd-party consumables are nothing but socialist meddling in the business decisions of private companies. These decisions should only be made by companies and enforced by the market. If NOT allowing 3rd party consumables is a bad business decision that will result in Epson going the way of Amiga and Commodore then consumers will vote with their wallets. The government should keep its nose OUT of these things.<P>

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that the whole REASON we have huge bloated governments and high taxes is because we expect government to fix every little complaint we have. The same people who applaud the "wisdom" of this particular government meddling will turn around and tell you (correctly) what idiots, morons, and clowns the US Congress and European Parliament are in regard to other things. If you look at the performance of the European economy or their unemployment rates you can make a pretty good guess about how much they know about what's good for business.

Peter Nelson Wrote:

 

<<Whether it is in Epson's business interests or not to prevent 3rd-party inks or cartridges being used in their printers should be for Epson and only Epson to decide.>>

 

In theory I agree, but how many instances can you come up with where existing products are modified/accessorized in our economy? Cars, cameras, computers, just to name a few. The beauty of our capitalist system is that those "third-party" products ARE allowed to proliferate. Epson has a case, but I prefer the option as a consumer.

 

<<<Laws by the EU requiring printer makers to allow 3rd-party consumables are nothing but socialist meddling in the business decisions of private companies. These decisions should only be made by companies and enforced by the market. If NOT allowing 3rd party consumables is a bad business decision that will result in Epson going the way of Amiga and Commodore then consumers will vote with their wallets. The government should keep its nose OUT of these things.>>>

 

I definitely agree with most of what you say there. But both sides (consumer advocates/private companies) should and do lobby for their interests. The sad fact is that politicians are more than willing to stick their nose in business, and as consumers, we have to ask where we stand on this issue. It could very well be that Epson, or any company for that matter, could create an unreasonable balance between protecting their intellectual property and choking off a consumers ability for choice. I mean really Peter, where do you draw the line with wholly supporting Epson on this? Should they be able to decide what kind of paper you do put into the machine? Should they be able to decide what kind of things you print or what computer you print from? These are gross exaggerations but it is well within reason to question at what point do companies relinquish their control of the products they sell. In my mind they sell me a printer, and just that, a PRINTER. Ditto to the whole "media rights protected" hard drive issue, and any number of such examples. These companies have real issues to deal with and I understand their positions, but there is legitimate debate to be had on the other side too.

 

<<<The other thing to keep in mind is that the whole REASON we have huge bloated governments and high taxes is because we expect government to fix every little complaint we have. The same people who applaud the "wisdom" of this particular government meddling will turn around and tell you (correctly) what idiots, morons, and clowns the US Congress and European Parliament are in regard to other things. If you look at the performance of the European economy or their unemployment rates you can make a pretty good guess about how much they know about what's good for business.>>>>

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

-Joe

The reason governments regulate businesses are complex and most of them predate socialism as an influence on government. In some cases, regulations arose because businesses found the real free market unpalatable and lobbyed for regulation. An example is standards for purity and reliability of products. In a totally unregulated marketplace, some sellers will offer shoddy products at lower prices. Reputable manufacturers may be force to follow suit, and pretty soon the public won't be willing to buy anything and become entirely cynical about that market. In order to provide a level playing field, businesses will ask for some sort of regulation which still gives them some freedom but also gives customers some confidence in the products or activity. A current example of that is proposed government regulation to control telemarketing and spam e-mail which is now under consideration.

 

Government regulation also is imposed when one corporation or a group of corporations have close to total control of the market and they make sure no one else can enter that market. The classic example was Standard Oil which controlled all aspects of the oil market from production through distribution. In that case, there is no free enterprise in that market; the corporation or corporations in effect become the government, but they are not elected so they don't have to respond to the public. They also don't have to respond to the public for competitive reasons because there is no meaningful competition. That sort of regulation is much less in vogue these days with conservative, corporation oriented politicians running things, but it is useful to remember that some of the trust busters of earlier years, like Theodore Roosevelt, were hardly socialists.

 

I don't know how Epson's policies on chips fits into this. It is certainly anti-competitive, since it prevents third parties from entering the computer ink business as far as their popular printers are concerned. If all printer manufacturers do the same thing, then it will lead to higher prices for inks than would result from a free market in inks. In previous years at least that sort of thing was considered illegal. For example, at one time companies would control the prices that merchants could charge for their products. There were various "fair trade" laws in states which protected that practice. But that was inconsistent with large scale discounting, and the courts decided that such arrangments were not acceptable. Today we live in an entirely different marketplace when it comes to appliances and other products one can buy at stores like Best Buy. That whole sector of the economy would not exist if the government had not "intervened".

 

I notice that manufacturer price control of this kind still exists for many of the products we are interested in. For example, no one discounts Epson scanners or printers by any significant amount. One can hope our free market system will ultimately assert itself again, perhaps by means of some government intervention, and the prices of such products will come down.

<I>In theory I agree, but how many instances can you come up with where existing products are modified/accessorized in our economy? Cars, cameras, computers, just to name a few. The beauty of our capitalist system is that those "third-party" products ARE allowed to proliferate. Epson has a case, but I prefer the option as a consumer. </I><P>

 

But if Ford came up with some special, weird design of tire and chipped them so they couldn't be made by third-parties it's not clear they would be in legal jeopardy, although it might be a bad business decision. Apple, as someone here has already pointed out, does not allow third-party copycats. It may or may not be a good business decision (Apple is one of the <B>VERY</B> few profitable personal computer makers) but in any case it's their decision.

<I>I don't know how Epson's policies on chips fits into this. It is certainly anti-competitive, since it prevents third parties from entering the computer ink business as far as their popular printers are concerned. If all printer manufacturers do the same thing, then it will lead to higher prices for inks than would result from a free market in inks.</I><P>

 

Not for long. It would create consumer demand for a cheaper solution and some company would come along to answer that need. Look at Dell's recent announcement that it's about to start making its own line of printers. True monopolies are rare because the free market naturally adjusts when any such distortions appear. Furthermore HP, Canon, and Epson cannot conspire to fix prices or block new market entries because that would violate existing antitrust law.<P>

 

Furthermore there IS a free market in inks. There is no law stopping third-parties from making inks; but Epson has a right to use their technology to prevent those inks from working with their printers. One solution would be for the 3rd-parties to make an ink for an Epson competitor SO GOOD that it raises that competitor's market share wrt Epson.<P>

 

When free markets are simply allowed to be free from government interference we all win.

I'm mostly with Peter, but we got a little far astray from the subject here. I know that my Epson 1280 Photo begins banding almost instantly when the monitor begins flashing that yellow triangle with the exclamation point. No way is there another 50 pages worth of ink. Is this something they're doing in Europe, or is this a case of protectionist defamation by the Dutch government? Does Epson perhaps have some European competitor who's reaping some benefit from this?<p>

This has the feel of something that happened here about twenty years ago -- our City's "Consumer Protection Office" prosecuted a bagel baker for advertising that his bagels were lower in fat than doughnuts. The CPO was adamant that bagels and doughnuts were functionally indistinguishable. Because the baker did not have the resources to afford expert testing and testimony, he was forced into a settlement requiring him to publish retractions claiming that there was no health benefit in eating bagels, compared to doughtnuts. Now, the whole story seems absurd, but that Consumer Protection Office was really proud of it at the time.

Peter,

<p>

You say, in the same post:

"Furthermore HP, Canon, and Epson cannot conspire to fix prices or block new market entries because that would violate existing antitrust law. ... When free markets are simply allowed to be free from government interference we all win."

<p>

Those two statements are self-contradictoty. Anit-trust laws are one of the most blatant interferences in the free market in existence.

<p>

Personally, I think free markets are only ideal when there is "fair" competition. "Fair" is ambiguous, but I would say that Epson wants people to use only Epson ink, they should achieve that by producing the best inks available for all market sectors, not through technological lock outs. If Epson does not desire to service the entire market, then they should have to face the competition from vendors that do.

<p>

I don't see that allowing them to prevent effective competition serves the market ideal at all.

<p>

Joe

Dear Mister Nelson,

Sadly, I totally agree with your answer.

But honestly, who are you to shun repudiation on others and their economy?

Firstly. The debate has absolutely nothing to dowith "socialism" so keep the remark for yourself.

Secondly, it may have occured to you that straight forward capitalism is not actually the unique model chosen by mankind. It may be yours and I respect your choice.

Luckily I have worked for long periods on the two continents... and I come to my conclusion : you only are assured to live once.

So I now prefer to earn less, with no stress and 8 weeks holiday per year to do more of what we all talking about : photography.

I just hope one day you will have that choice, and leave us alone with that one stupid remark of yours.

Otherwise, I enjoy reading you. Best regards.

I remember seeing a calculation this week indicating that inkjet inks cost several times more than Dom Perignon champagne per liter. Personally, I'd just take the Dom.

<I>Dear Mister Nelson, Sadly, I totally agree with your answer. But honestly, who are you to shun repudiation on others and their economy? Firstly. The debate has absolutely nothing to dowith "socialism" </I><P>

 

Sure it does. In its pure form socialism is ownership of industry by the state. Failing to achieve that, the European Social Democrats and their ilk are satisfied to tell industries how to run their businesses. This is not a matter of my personal opinion - the facts speak for themselves: using the same OECD data, France, Germany, and other large European economies have dramatically higher unemployment rates and lower GDP growth than the US. Telling Epson how to run their business is a larger symptom of the belief that government knows whats best for us better than we do.<P>

 

<I> So I now prefer to earn less, with no stress and 8 weeks holiday per year to do more of what we all talking about : photography. </I><P>

 

That's fine. Negotiate that with your employer. What if I prefer to work more and earm more money? Or what if I'm an employer and prefer to hire people to work more and earn more so we can grow the company and create more jobs? The problem with government making the rules is that the same choices are forced on everyone. One reason why BMW and Mercedes and other German companies built their latest factories in the US South instead of Germany is because it's more business-friendly here. So US workers got those jobs instead of members of IG Metall.<P>

 

<I>I remember seeing a calculation this week indicating that inkjet inks cost several times more than Dom Perignon champagne per liter. Personally, I'd just take the Dom.</I><P>

 

I tried that. The Dom isn't as colorfast and the bubbles screw up refilling the cartridge.

The so-called "free market" does not exist without government regulation.

Am I in the right forum?

 

Joe

No Joe, you don't seem to be in the right forum...

The thing is I partly agree with mister Nelson... However, it is not good to be so sure of the facts... and criticize so openly how other people view the world. Leave the Europeans live their own life and forget the stupid "national products" "un-employement rates" etc. figures which are relatively meanless out of the context. As for the "socialist ilk" and their view on business. obviously you haven't got the story right from the beginning. Moderation in everything.

That's why I agree: if EPSON wants to make printers that print their own paper... why not, but on the other hand why should they prevent anyone else feeding something else into thier printer like canvas etc.. after all its the printer they sold you in the first place, not the paper. Ok you will say "let the market decide"...

<I>if EPSON wants to make printers that print their own paper... why not, but on the other hand why should they prevent anyone else feeding something else into thier printer like canvas etc..</I><P>

 

It doesn't matter <B>why</B> they should do that. It's <B>THEIR</B> printer, it's <B>THEIR</B> product, it's <B>THEIR</B> company. Maybe chipping their cartridges is a really stupid business decision, but if so, it's <B>THEIR</B> mistake to make.

<I>One reason why BMW and Mercedes and other German companies built their

latest factories in the US South instead of Germany is because it's more business-

friendly here. </I><P>Not to mention that America is the biggest market for the

specific

vehicles they are building here, so transportation costs (Building anywhere in the USA)

significantly lowers costs as opposed to shipping from Europe).<P><I>One reason

why BMW and Mercedes and other German companies built their latest factories in the

US South instead of Germany is because it's more business-friendly here.

</I><P>And not to forget the huge tax incentives, rebates & generally keeping the

property & other taxable assets off of the tax rolls for several decades that were given

as presents to these

multi-nationals to intice them to build their plants here... which sounds suspiciously

like corporate welfare to me... while placing the burden of increased taxes for

schools, roads and national defense on the

shoulders of those blue and white collar workers.

>>> It's THEIR printer

 

Actually, unless I have an imperfect understanding of the law, once I've bought it it's MY printer.

...plus if you read the related articles, the decision apparently has as much if not more to do with recycling issues as it does anticompetitive concerns. So I say more power to them.

Definetely it is no point arguing. However, as I notice, the person saying EPSON can do whay they want with their printer, which of course no one can disagree of... is also the person who tries interesting printing capabilities on the 2200 on all sorts of papers, visit his site!

Don't overdo the discussion, we've got the pros and cons. The rest is a question of heart.

<I>However, as I notice, the person saying EPSON can do whay they want with their printer, which of course no one can disagree of...</I><P>

 

Obviously you're wrong since the EU can disagree - according to the article the EU won't let Epson chip their cartridges after a certain date.<P>

 

<I> is also the person who tries interesting printing capabilities on the 2200 on all sorts of papers, visit his site!</I><P>

 

But what's your point? If Epson made some technological feature to stop me I would concede that was their right - I wouldn't go running to my congressman to pass a law against it.<P>

 

<B>To Ellis:</B> Yes of course Alabama et al, provided lots of tax incentives to build factories in their state, as they would to any other company, and as any German city would have done. I was in Munich a few years ago to visit the BMW plant there and you should see how much the city fathers and the company were in bed there. But the bottom line, according to The Economist magazine is labor costs: the German car workers earn $26/hr, the Americans $19/hr and get less vacation time and other perks.

Getting away from Europe bashing, of course Epson introduced the

microchipped cartridges to force owners of their printers to use their greatly

overpriced ink. The amount of ink in cartridges is so slight that it's probably

less than 5% of the cost of producing cartridges. More upscale Epson

printers, the 5000 on up, have much larger ink cartridges, but the printers

cost a lot more.

 

There is an ink supplier in the US for Epson printers that sells their products

for a fraction of what Epson does, with chips where required, but if you don't

know I ain't gonna tell you. Only Lexmark has invoked the DMCA to stifle

competition, Epson has stated that they won't. Maybe there aren't any

European companies making cartridges for Epson printers?

<I>Epson has stated that they won't. Maybe there aren't any European companies

making cartridges for Epson printers?

</I><P>And maybe Richard you don't really know what you are talking about.