HP sues firms that refill ink cartridges

[canadateck]

Hewlett-Packard, much of whose profit comes from printer supplies, has sued two companies that sell refilled ink cartridges, but it stopped short of trying to block the refill business altogether.

On Friday, HP sued InkCycle in U.S. District Court for the western district of Wisconsin, alleging that the company's ink violates three HP patents. And on Monday, HP sued RhinoTek in U.S. District Court for the northern district of California, accusing RhinoTek of false advertising by using packaging that indicates its refilled HP printer cartridges are new.

Refilling ink cartridges is "a giant problem, not just for HP, but for everybody in the printing business," said Gary Peterson, an analyst with GAP Intelligence. "I would say at least 10 to 15 percent of all consumables purchases are refills. That's a huge chunk of profit taken away from HP and all the other printer companies."

But HP said the suits aren't a change in HP's policy that customers have a right to refill legally purchased cartridges or buy refilled cartridges. "We still believe it's the customer's choice," said spokeswoman Monica Sarkar, adding that HP believes its products have better quality and reliability.

The Palo Alto, Calif., printer powerhouse requests that InkCycle stop--in HP's opinion--infringing the patents and pay damages and HP legal fees. Brad Roderick, vice president of marketing for InkCycle, said Monday that a settlement in that suit is expected soon.

"We've been in direct communication with HP and expect a very near-term full resolution," Roderick said. He declined to comment on terms or whether InkCycle will continue to sell its products, but he said, "We're a company that has always been respectful of intellectual-property rights."

The ramifications of the InkCycle case could spread beyond the company if it's using ink that other refillers use as well. Roderick wouldn't comment on the origin of the company's ink.

In the Rhinotek case, HP asserts that the company's "packaging and promotional materials are calculated to give consumers the impression that defendants' cartridges are new." HP wants a requirement that Rhinotek use the words "used" and "refilled" prominently on its packaging of refilled HP ink cartridges. HP also wants all Rhinotek profits from the time of the alleged deceptive advertisements.

Rhinotek didn't immediately respond to requests to comment for this story.

HP has been less aggressive in legal attacks against printer supply companies than one rival, Lexmark. HP lashed out against Lexmark's attempt to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, to stop ink refillers.


"We think it is stretching it," HP printing unit exec Pradeep Jotwani said in a 2003 interview. "The DMCA was put in place (to protect) things like movies, music and software applications."

"We consciously make sure that our cartridges are reusable and refillable," Jotwani said at the time. The company does put some limits on the practice, such as adding software that makes some of its cartridges unusable after a certain expiration date--either four-and-a-half years after its manufacture or two-and-a-half years after its installation.

In the case against InkCycle, HP claimed the company has violated three patents: Nos. 5,165,968; 5,428,383 and 5,488,402. The first concerns fast-drying ink that works well on plain paper, and the second two concern methods for preventing color from bleeding.

HP said in its suit against Rhinotek that it holds 9,000 patents related to imaging and printing, 4,000 of them for consumable supplies such as ink and cartridges.

[ViRaL1]

Next thing you know, no more rebuilt alternators.

[tgpo]

Next thing you know, no more rebuilt alternators.

Or used Cars

[verchad]

Next thing you know, no more rebuilt alternators.

Or starters, transmissions, engines, etc...

Hmm they better make sure that they stamp REFURBISHED or REBUILT or USED on all the office machines and pcs they sell or others sell that say HP on them. Many times I have seen items that carry no indication on the box or in the packaging that they are Refurb/rebuilt. Also, they better make sure stores selling open box items have a stamp made to show they are not NEW items.

[BJ_M]

by law - even brand new cars on the lot may be "refurbished" without discloser (in some cases)

[KBeee]

Didn't Epson try this a year or two ago?

[tgpo]

Didn't Epson try this a year or two ago?

Yeah, didn't someone sue one of the manufacturers because they had chips on the cartridges that prevented refills.

[BJ_M]

lexmark i think

[lenti_75]

fuckers...... they should spend the money from lawsuits making their products less expensive.....

[hudsonf]

But HP said the suits aren't a change in HP's policy that customers have a right to refill legally purchased cartridges or buy refilled cartridges. "We still believe it's the customer's choice," said spokeswoman Monica Sarkar, adding that HP believes its products have better quality and reliability.

Then why are they suing!

[ViRaL1]

Yes, it was Lexmark.

[painkiller]

I agree with lenti_75.

Despite hte "letter of the law" most companies no longer consider the consumer's point of view. It's all about the dollar.

They'd rather think we'd be happy to empty our pocketbooks at their beck and call.

[Stormin Norman]

Depends who has the most money will win.

[RMaddog]

This is not because they are selling refilled ink. The reason they are sueing is because they are selling and not disclosing that they are refilled carts. They are selling as they are geuine OEM HP carts.

false advertising by using packaging that indicates its refilled HP printer cartridges are new.

[RMaddog]

This is not because they are selling refilled ink. The reason they are sueing is because they are selling and not disclosing that they are refilled carts. They are selling as they are geuine OEM HP carts.

false advertising by using packaging that indicates its refilled HP printer cartridges are new.

In the Rhinotek case, HP asserts that the company's "packaging and promotional materials are calculated to give consumers the impression that defendants' cartridges are new."

[steve2713]

Just that much more reason to continue hating HP

[AlecWest]

Sour grapes for the printer companies (I own a LexMark X75). They priced their products based on the Barbie doll loss-leader marketing theory ... that you sell the doll itself cheaply but make up for it via aftermarket accessories. I think they'll lose in the end. But they may score a few points against refillers who advertise their refilled cartridges in a fraudulent manner ... or use printer-company cartridges and slap their own product label on top (like Office Depot does) to make it seem like it's a new cartridge.

If anything, the refill companies will fall back on previous cases that didn't capture media attention ... involving companies that "re-inked" typewriter ribbons and resold them ... and later sold "re-inked" ribbons for dot-matrix printers.

BTW, there are still companies that sell re-inked typewriter ribbons:

http://www.ecpinc.com/items.asp?CartId=6578-ACCWARE-493EPHZV734&Cc=RIBBON&tpc=

[BJ_M]

barbie dolls are not cheap though , but I get your drift ..

[tlegion]

Instead of Barbie dolls, a better analogy would be razors. Since the patent on triple-bladed razors seems to have expired (assumption on my part), I've now seen disposable store-brand triple-blade razors.

[pfh]

Sour grapes!?
Can't blame 'em if it's indeed how RMaddog states cause that IS bs.

[AlecWest]

Sour grapes!?
Can't blame 'em if it's indeed how RMaddog states cause that IS bs.

In HP's case, yes. But the article also mentions Lexmark's attempt to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to stop ink refillers altogether. The article also says:

The ramifications of the InkCycle case could spread beyond the company if it's using ink that other refillers use as well.

I suspect HP is using a legitimate beef to re-invigorate other issues with refillers that aren't germane to the case.

[hudsonf]

This is not because they are selling refilled ink. The reason they are sueing is because they are selling and not disclosing that they are refilled carts. They are selling as they are geuine OEM HP carts.

Quote:
false advertising by using packaging that indicates its refilled HP printer cartridges are new.


Quote:
In the Rhinotek case, HP asserts that the company's "packaging and promotional materials are calculated to give consumers the impression that defendants' cartridges are new."

I have to disagree

On Friday, HP sued InkCycle in U.S. District Court for the western district of Wisconsin, alleging that the company's ink violates three HP patents.

They just want us to think it's for our best interest.

[AlecWest]

They just want us to think it's for our best interest.

Bingo. This is a Goliath vs. David battle. Their root case may have merit. But the extent of the ramifications of this case are far-reaching and may force many Davids into financial corners. The article said:

Refilling ink cartridges is "a giant problem, not just for HP, but for everybody in the printing business," said Gary Peterson, an analyst with GAP Intelligence. "I would say at least 10 to 15 percent of all consumables purchases are refills. That's a huge chunk of profit taken away from HP and all the other printer companies."

So, when HP says:

But HP said the suits aren't a change in HP's policy that customers have a right to refill legally purchased cartridges or buy refilled cartridges. "We still believe it's the customer's choice," said spokeswoman Monica Sarkar, adding that HP believes its products have better quality and reliability.

... it sounds a bit disingenuous ... especially since their software recognizes the "age" of certain cartridges in an attempt to thwart refill attempts. HP isn't suing InkCycle to benefit consumers. They're suing InkCycle to benefit HP.

[RMaddog]

HP, based in Palo Alto, Calif., sees things differently. "We're not forcing people to use any particular cartridge. We just think it's wrong to sell our used cartridges without telling people they are used HP cartridges," company spokeswoman Monica Sarkar said.

[AlecWest]

HP, based in Palo Alto, Calif., sees things differently. "We're not forcing people to use any particular cartridge. We just think it's wrong to sell our used cartridges without telling people they are used HP cartridges," company spokeswoman Monica Sarkar said.

If it's true they're not forcing people to use any particular cartridge, then why does their software recognize the "age" of some cartridges ... making them inert even if they've been refilled? Their root case has merit. But their overall reason for suing is a bit more complicated.

One thing is interesting, though. Maybe I've just not heard of it ... but I'm surprised someone hasn't "hacked" this software to attempt removing its ability to recognize a cartridge's age ... allowing printers to accept refilled cartridges until the cartridge's physical lifespan can no longer support refills.

[johns0]

These printer companies never wanted cartridges to be recycled indefinitely,why do you think most of them use sponges?This so that after 10 refills the sponges becomes saturated with too much air and cant be filled again.

[pchan]

The profit margin from printer is puny.
Profit margin from printer consumable is still good. What HP is doing is to protect their interest... shareholders'.

[dcsos]

JUST WAIT TILL THEY START PUNISHING US
Anyonomous Johns

#1 Ink Cartridge Outlaw Perp lineup