Issue #0533/2 - Five more companies fall foul of the aggressive action by Hewlett-Packard and Epson in the protection of their ink technology intellectually property.
Both Hewlett-Packard and Epson have recently recorded successes against third party companies that have been selling ink cartridge products that infringe the intellectual property of the OEM manufacturer.
In a constant battle to protect their investment in technology and development of print heads and ink formulations, the major printer OEMs rigorously monitor the products being supplied by the third party supplies industry.
In a process leading to its latest successes, Hewlett-Packard has reverse engineered third party inks to determine the exact constitution of the ink contained in third party cartridges. This has led the company to be able to prove that technology patents have been infringed – the result of third party ink manufacturers reverse engineering Hewlett-Packard’s inks!
Cartridge World in the US and Staples have both fallen foul of selling compatible cartridges containing patent infringing inks. InkCycle, the company supplying Staples, resolved the infringement by adjusting its ink formulation. For Cartridge World, as a franchisor, the problem is a little more difficult in that different outlets may be using inks from different manufacturers –meaning that not all franchisees will be breaking the law and customers have no way of telling which are and which are not.
This highlights some of the downsides to the user of using third party ‘compatible’ ink cartridges. All ink cartridges (containing a print head) are constructed by the OEM. There is no third party manufacturing of print heads.
Therefore, any ‘compatible’ cartridge is actually an original cartridge. The difference is that it has been refilled with inks from another manufacturer – not actually much different from you refilling used cartridges yourself. Where the difference does occur is that reputable third parties will have cleaned the cartridge before refilling it and will have tested it before sale.
But, the customer still has no idea how many times the cartridge has been round the usage/refilling cycle. At least when a user refills his own cartridges, it might be messy but he has complete control over the process, the accepted print quality and when the cartridge is declared ‘dead’.
Hewlett-Packard has also recently had issue with another third party company, Rhinotech Computer Products, over the design of the packaging used to resell refilled cartridges. Users had apparently been mistaking Rhinotech’s products for new cartridges rather than refilled. Agreement has been reached for an adjustment to the packaging design to overcome this problem and inject more positive differentiation into the design, although Rhinotech has not admitted any wrongdoing.
Epson’s situation is slightly different from Hewlett-Packard’s because the Epson print head is incorporated in the printer and not in the ink cartridge.
However, the same principles apply where ink formulation, and also design of the ink tanks, is concerned. Although the tank holds no technology (i.e. print head), Epson’s research and development engineers have designed tanks that are as operationally ergonomic as possible. For a third party to dismantle a tank and copy it is an infringement of the patented parts of the tank. Yet, manufacturing a new tank is cheaper than collecting, cleaning and refilling used tanks.
With a focus again on the UK, Epson has filed proceedings against CybaHouse Limited to prevent the importation of certain products under the IM Jet brand from China. An out of court settlement has been obtained, ensuring that sales of the offending cartridges will end.
Users have a right to know what type of product they are purchasing and any misleading packaging, whether deliberate or mistaken, only damages the reputation of the industry as a whole. There is a relatively fine line between deliberately designing misleading packaging and actively passing off a product as an original – i.e. counterfeiting.
Without ongoing investment from companies like Hewlett-Packard, Epson and Canon, inkjet technology could not have progressed to the current position where inkjet printers are as fast as four-pass colour laser printers and produce photographs that exceed the quality of silver halide photographic prints.
~End~
