Need help on selecting a printer

[ghwellsjr]

I was surprised to see that you located an iP6000D because when I did a search on eBay last night, I didn't find any, but I now realize, it was because I left the "D" off. This is really amazing that this printer is going for less than original price but the iP4000 is being offered at double or triple original price.

 

[WhiteDog]

Dear Xalky, please tell your friends in the law business about this. In class actions the law firm assumes the cost of the litigation. A lead plaintiff is recruited to act as the lightning rod. There is no obligation in this role. Other plaintiffs join along the way. With a judgement in favor the plaintiffs advertisements are placed to ask all qualifying persons, "members of the class", to come forward. A cutoff date is announced. The law firm takes a percentage of the proceeds which can be an awful lot of money, as in the asbestos cases, and tobacco. Thus the incentive to the law firms. By all means, ask your friends. The topic has been litigated before, as in http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/hp_inkjet.html. You can find others if you google "inkjet printer class action." including the contents of this web site

Guns are not sold with a lifetime supply of bullets, so why should printers stick you with a lifetime obligation to buy brand-name ink?

 

[Xalky]

I did a search for printer class action lawsuits last night. One turned up for Epson, and another for HP, none for canons so far. Do HP and Epson use the smart chip technology? If they do maybe they could be rolled in to the suit. All those that have incorporated the smartchip technology should be included in the suit. Lasers, plotters etc... any printing device that excludes competition on the consummables should be included in the suit.

The way I look at it, If the printer won't run because the smartchip say's so and it'll only run the way it's intended with smartchip cartridges. Then either make em run on non smartchip cartridges or make the smartchip technology available to the open market so that anyone can make a cartridge that works in the printer. Anything else smells of monopoly and antitrust. If it voids the warranty,...that's fine. All the printer companies need to be put on the same level playing field.

What's happened here is that they've completely excluded the competition. I'd rather pay more for the printer and have my choice of who's ink I'm gonna buy. Because printer competition is fair and open. The ink market is completely exclusionary and it's unfair to the consumer.

If I decide to pursue this, I'm gonna need more ideas about how to form the language in the suit. Our attorney general here in CT likes these kind of "unfair to the consumer", antitrust type lawsuits. Maybe I'll just write him a letter.

 

[bfallona]

That's why I posted my first question. I think it's because a lot of review sites state the the ip4000 is the top of the line at that point in time. Faster etc. I am just glad I got one. Heck I may even buy another one just so I don't have to use the chipped cartridges.

I was surprised to see that you located an iP6000D because when I did a search on eBay last night, I didn't find any, but I now realize, it was because I left the "D" off. This is really amazing that this printer is going for less than original price but the iP4000 is being offered at double or triple original price.

 

[ghwellsjr]

For those of you who think Canon is at risk of losing a lawsuit, please see my post:

http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=9891#p9891

In addition to my comments there about the legitimacy of Canon's chipped cartridge design, I would ask if you think it is unfair for Canon to keep their ink recipe a secret? What good is it for a court to rule that Canon has to allow competitors to make cartridges that work in their printers unless they can also replicate the inks exactly so that you can mix cartridges from several sources, not to mention getting the same longevity of prints that everybody agrees Canon inks are best at?

As I have said before (http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1533), "let's hear no more complaints about the new chipped Canon cartridges". As the original topic of this thread has shown, there are plenty of printers still available that use the unchipped cartridges so that evey one of us can have several spares enough to last us well into the future when Canon and Epson and HP and Lexmark no longer make inkjet printers just like they no longer make dot matrix printers because the prices on color laser printers will be so low, no one will want to mess with inkjets anymore. Lawyers can make that day come sooner, not because the price of laser printers will be so low, but because the price of inkjets will be so high.

Please, I beg you.

 

[WhiteDog]

GHWells, in a backward kind of way you have confirmed the need for some activism on this issue.

The controlling Federal statute in the US is the Moss-Magnusson Act (1975) There are various state regulations, and Canadian provinces maintain somewhat similar provisions.

The next two paragraphs are pretty good distillation fo the Moss-Magnusson, and of course I will ask you how car lubrication differs from inkjet replacement ink. (Just substitute "printer" for "car.") Notice that in addition to the specific provisions of the Act, there are overarching "general principles" in American practice. One of the larger principles is fairness, and another disclosure.

"Is your car still under warranty? Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the general principles of the Federal Trade Commission Act, a manufacturer/dealer may NOT require you to have routine oil changes or use any particular brand of oil filter (or any other car part) unless the manufacturer provides the item free of charge, during the terms of the warranty.

If your car is still covered under the new car warranty and a dealer is telling you that you have to use their name brand filter or your new car warranty will be voided, for example, then you should thank him, and inform him that under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act he now has to provide that oil change and filter for free. It is not true that you have to use the dealer for oil changes, even on a brand new car. If dealers say you are required to use their products or else have your warranty voided, then the work is considered warranty work and must be provided for free. The requirement is to use approved products. In fact, you can do the oil change yourself as long as you use approved products and do the oil changes at the required intervals. If you do them yourself simply keep documentation. "

(http://popular.thewavemedia.com/warranty.html)

A corollary of the Act, is that tied sales, of which the printer-ink thing is de facto a variant, are required to be priced by the whole contract, not in attractive pieces which end up baiting the consumer.

GHWells, your "cheaper printer" is one of those yummy pieces, but it might just not be legal. If the "secret ingredient" of the ink is non-material to the functionality, it is a fraud. If it is material to the performance, then the Act applies. If the "secret ingredient" of the ink achieves longevity, customers wishing the alleged longevity should have an option of purchasing the contract. Those of us who do office memos and spreadsheets for the 10 am sales meeting in which they never leave the room and are swept up before lunch should get the economy infinietly-refillable alternative.

The Moss-Magnusson statute is here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+15USC2302

PS: I am not impressed by the "secret formula" claims. The number of potential ingredients for inks are relatively few, and the chemisty can be unravelled quite easily. The change of a proprietary molecule being present in any of these inks is zero, IMO. Ask any indutrial print shop mixer. I will look to see if there are new MSD sheets for the CLI-8 inks, and if there are not, we shall assume that all Canon inks are the same, and have been since the sheets were first published in 2000 A.D.

 

[ghwellsjr]

WhiteDog, I want to thank you for bringing the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to our attention. I had not previously been aware of it. The first item from a Google search finds this site:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.htm

This is the official government explanation of this law. I suggest everyone read and study it that is interested in following this discussion. This law is basically a Truth in Warranty law. I don't want to reiterate everything that is said there, I will assume everyone responding is already familiar with this explanation.

Now if you look at the warranty provided for Canon printers you will see that it is identical for the older printers that use non-chipped cartridges and for the newer printers that use chipped cartridges. The part of the warranty that concerns "tie-in sales" relating to the requirement to use only Canon cartridges is:

"This limited warranty covers all defects encountered in normal use of the Product and does not apply in the following cases:
...
(b) Use of parts or supplies (other than those sold by Canon USA) that cause damage to the Product or cause abnormally frequent service calls or service problems."

And the relevant part of the explanation of the law relating to "tie-in sales" is:

"Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service. If you believe that this is the case, you should contact the warranty staff of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection for information on how to apply for a waiver of the tie-in sales prohibition."

I have no idea if Canon has obtained a waiver but at least the provision is there. All they would have to do is demonstrate that the percentage of warranty repairs went down when they put the chips in the cartridges.

Here is the significant issue: prior to the chipped cartridges, Canon's warranty did not cover damage to the printer caused by using third party cartridges or inks. However, I'm sure before anyone took their printer in for warranty coverage, they would put a set of OEM carts in it. How was Canon to know? How could they ever prove that your bad cartridge damaged the print head?

So Canon builds into their new printers and cartridges a mechanism to determine if the consumer has broken the requirements of the warranty--the same warranty that was in effect earlier but had no enforceability. In addition, this new mechanism reduces to zero the chance that the user will inadvertantly create a situation that could harm the printer.

This is all for the purpose of providing an unambiguous means by which Canon can support legitimate warranty claims and reject those that aren't.

 

[Tin Ho]

To me chipped cartridges is not the issue. It is turning off the printer's ability to detect empty ink tank, when the printer determines that you are using refilled ink cartridges, that's questionable. I am willing to accept the consequence of using 3rd party ink. If the printer clogs and dies and I am willing to lose the warranty but not if Canon sets it up for my printer to be damaged when it finds that you are refilling. Why turning off the detectin mechanism? It's not a function needed to make the printer work nor will it benefit consumers. It is only to invite you to destroy your printer faster.

It's really like a car manufacturer programs a car's computer to overheat the engine when it detects that you are using a 3rd party gas. It of course acknowledges you ahead of time that you would lose warranty. But even if you are willing to accept that condition it still shuts off the engine's overheat detection system so that your engine may melt down during a traffic hour commute.

 

[Xalky]

To me chipped cartridges is not the issue. It is turning off the printer's ability to detect empty ink tank, when the printer determines that you are using refilled ink cartridges, that's questionable. I am willing to accept the consequence of using 3rd party ink. If the printer clogs and dies and I am willing to lose the warranty but not if Canon sets it up for my printer to be damaged when it finds that you are refilling. Why turning off the detectin mechanism? It's not a function needed to make the printer work nor will it benefit consumers. It is only to invite you to destroy your printer faster.

It's really like a car manufacturer programs a car's computer to overheat the engine when it detects that you are using a 3rd party gas. It of course acknowledges you ahead of time that you would lose warranty. But even if you are willing to accept that condition it still shuts off the engine's overheat detection system so that your engine may melt down during a traffic hour commute.

Tin Ho nailed it. That is the point of contention.

Now why couldn't I say that.

 

[ghwellsjr]

If you said it's like shutting off the gas gauge, then I would agree it's a better example. But that wouldn't keep you from using your car, you just have to keep it filled on a regular basis.

I wish Canon had never gone to the chipped cartridges. I wish they hadn't disabled the optical sensor, but that just means that they would have returned the printer to its pre-chip status. Why not argue that the new printers should accept the old unchipped cartridges or third-party cartridges, voiding the warranty? But then all the other problems come into play that I linked to earlier. Under the old scheme of things, the printer can't tell the difference between a third-party cartridge and no cartridge at all. So what you are really asking for is Canon to detect a refilled OEM cartridge or a third-party cartridge that the chip has been transferred to.

Now consider this. What if a novice user forgets to remove the tape over the vent hole or it otherwise doesn't work so there is little or no ink flow and they continue to use the printer? The printer has no way of knowing that this condition exists until the counter in the cartridge determines that it should be empty when it isn't. This is an additonal safeguard that is built into the chip design. The same safeguard would protect against a faulty OEM cartridge that had an air leak in the reservoir so all the ink drained out. Who should take responsibility for these situations? Now Canon does and they can tell what has happened.

If you are asking for Canon to allow the optical sensor to continue to work, you are asking them to bless the use of transferring their chips to third-party cartridges or refilling theirs with the added risk of the aforementioned problems. How would a court decide in this situation? Couldn't it be argued that Canon was permitting this abuse and should therefore continue to take responsibility?

The issue is whether Canon is going to take responsibility for repairing or replacing damaged printers using their cartridges. They want to fairly do that where they maintain control of the whole process. I can't blame them.