Loading ...
Tyler v. Hewlett-Packard Company
I’ve been asked by a few readers to keep up with the the inkjet cartridge lawsuit against the Hewlett-Packard Company. When I last checked just a few days after the case was filed it had not made it into the Santa Clara Superior Court’s website.
Well, it is there now. You can find docket info here: Tyler v. Hewlett-Packard Company
How current that information is, of course, depends upon a large number of factors, not the least of which is how overworked the clerk’s office may be.
It is interesting to me that Hewlett-Packard has not yet filed an answer, although California allows for 30 days to answer (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 412.20(a)(3).), along with one 15 day extension by agreement of the parties (Rule 201.7(d), Cal. Rules of Court). Since HP appears to have been served around the 28th of February, they are still well within that window.
I should also note that HP appears to have released a statement on the case, although it is not to be found in their “news room”. You can read that statement here. In this statement HP appears to say:
Smart technology used in our cartridges enhances the customer printing experience and protects the system from damage. On a small number of cartridges, this includes the use of an “expiration date”. These are used with HP’s business inkjet systems that have separate printheads and ink supplies.
The expiration date prevents the degradation of printer components and print quality due to changes over time in ink properties, cartridge properties and interactions between ink and the cartridge.
For some printing systems with ink expiration dates, the maximum cartridge lifetime is more than 4 years (54 months), and the maximum in-printer life is 2.5 years. In other systems with ink expiration dates, the maximum lifetime is 3 years and in-printer life is 18 months. The time allowed exceeds the normal usage period for the vast majority of our customers.
This seems to admit the matter at the crux of the lawsuit: HP does have some of its inkjet smart chips expire the cartridge even though the ink has not yet exhausted. Their defense seems to be that you shouldn’t be holding onto an ink cartridge that long anyway.
MickC @ March 23, 2005
[...] the amount of ink that is left within the cartridge. Now that we are near the end of the 45 day window for HP to file a responsive pleading, HP app [...]
Think about a HP ink cartridge that has a warranty. Bad ink cartridge, color bad, light ink which appears watery, what-ever, they give you another one. That’s the way a warranty works. You buy a recycled ink cartridge, with no HP warranty. It may work momentarily, but then you get these same messages, remove cartridge. Why should my printer shut down after purchasing a recycled ink cartridge? But then if you buy an HP ink cartridge, your printer is up and running again. Or until that time HP thinks you have printed long enough, even if you have plenty of ink. HP forces you, according to HP predetermined usage, in order for your printer to work, to buy their ink cartridges, or HP will shut your printer down.
Don’t focus on the ink cartridge, focus on the fact HP, and other printer manufacturers, stop your printer from working, because of some silly game they are playing of cheating customers before the ink runs out, or wrong ink standards, or what-ever. I say, go ahead send these stupid messages, but don’t stop my printer from working. This is anti-competitive, and in violation of anti-trust laws.
To be perfectly clear
Hewlett Packard recycles their ink cartridges by promoting that HP cartridges be returned for recycling, using a self addressed, stamped envelope. Allowing HP, through their “refurbishing and reselling” effort to conserve resources, using the various recycling facilities of manufacturers around the world contracted by HP. Thus, the mere fact that there also are other recyclers available to refurbish, and recycle ink cartridges, but except for lower cost, and the free choice of the consumer, HP has restricted the consumer the full use, and the operation of HP printers.
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law, ninth edition. West Publishing. Chapter 43; ANTITRUST.
“Characterizing a type of restraint as per se illegal therefore has a significant effect on the prosecution of an antitrust suit. In such a case, the plaintiff need only show that the type of restraint occurred, she does not need to prove that the restraint limited competition…..Tying arrangements. A tying arrangement occurs when the seller of a product, service, or intangible (the “tying” product) conditions its sale on the buyers purchasing a second product, service, or intangible (the “tied” product) from the seller….Because tying arrangements limit buyers’ freedom of choice and may exclude competitors, the law closely scrutinizes such agreements.”
Hewlett Packard has, unbeknownst to customers who purchased HP printers (tying product), tied as a condition, the purchase of new HP ink cartridges (tied product), or HP recycled ink cartridges, through the use illegal anti-competitive consumer practices.
After all, what are we talking about, it’s a ball point pen refill morphed into a printer ink cartridge. It’s a recycled auto part! Again, I say Hewlett Packard, and the rest of the conspirators, play your silly games by cheating consumers on ink cost, and supplies. I say go ahead! But don’t stop me from the use of my printer.