Ian M;38887 wrote:Just a few years ago I heard that Epson had taken a company to court with sucess in Germany because the make up of their ink was the same as Epsons. This was ordinary inkjet ink & not sublimation ink. It turned out that Epson had a patent on their own formula & they used the court case to try to fire a warning shot across the bows of the third party ink manufacturers. Luckily it didn't really work for Epson & they soon gave up persuing anyone else.
The whole situation with "chips on cartridges" came from OEM manufacturers trying to foil third party suppliers - because that's easier than trying to take them to court (the third party manufacturer is invariably in another country). This is why printer models are like revolving doors - the next model is effectively exactly the same as the last one, it just uses different cartridges with a different chip.
The irony on all of this discussion, though, is that there would be no need for any infringement/court cases/illegal bullying, if the OEM just sold their products at a more reasonable price. If the inks were more affordable, we'd use more of it. Pound for pound, the ink manufacturer would still make the same amount of money - they'd just sell more ink. Ink manufacturers invariably produce their own papers, so the more ink we use (because it's cheaper), the more paper we'd use (and they'd make even more profits on that). We'd win, they'd win, everyone would win.
But no, it's apparently better business practice to keep prices high and bully the end user. We lose, they lose, everyone's a loser. Still, that's business I guess...
