HP Launches Ink Patent Violation Manhunt

BlueCup writes to tell us that Hewlett-Packard has deployed a large team consisting of many scientists and many more lawyers looking for possible ink patent infringement. With more than 4,000 patents on their ink formulations and cartridge design and a market share of more than 50 percent in the US HP depends heavily on the sale of ink to make profit after sometimes selling their printers at a loss in order to lock in the ink resale.

Re:Disposable Razor IS bad

[cayenne8]

"Now that you mention it, that's exactly what I'm thinking of doing. Color doesn't matter much to me, so I've been seriously considering an inexpensive B&W laser."

Shoot, go on eBay and look for a used laser, you can get them a dime a dozen.

Also, if you choose carefully, and get the same models they use where you work....you'll never have to buy toner again.

:-P

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:So what printer maker isn't a scumbag?

[LordKronos]

Canon. I've been very satisfied with the quality of their printers. Their ink cartridges are clear, so you can see right inside them. Absolutely nothing in there but ink and a sponge. No chips or circuits or anything of the type. Their name brand ink is a pretty good value compared to the other brands, and you can buy much cheaper replacement inks without any worried of it being considered unauthorized.

The printers have ink level sensors that tell you when the ink gets low and then prompts you to replace the cartridge. However, when that happens, you can clearly see there is no ink inside the cartridge. However, there is sometimes ink still in the sponge. If you don't want to waste that, the printer lets you override it and continue printing. I regularly do this. After the cartridge is reported as empty, I'll print a few 8x10 photos, pull out the cartridge and see if the sponge is saturated or starting to dry. If it still has considerable ink absorbed in the sponge, I'll put in back in and print a few more. However, be careful not to overdo it. I've heard that it's very bad for the print head if it actually runs dry.

And to top it all off, when a cartridge actually runs out and needs to be replaced, most of the canons I've seen use individual cartridges for each color, so you don't throw out a half full magenta cart when the cyan runs out.

Re:Feeling the Heat from Canon

[Drachemorder]

Not only that, but the Canon cartridges contain about three times as much ink for a comparable price (16 mL as opposed to 5 mL --- I checked). Granted, there probably isn't a one-to-one correspondence between the absolute ink usage of the two brands, but I'd expect the Canon doesn't use three times the amount of ink per page. None of the inks are truly inexpensive, but in my experience Canon does a pretty decent job at a pretty decent price.

Re:Disposable Razor IS bad

[AKAImBatman]

the cartridges that come with them usually aren't intended to last more than 50 pages.

You're telling me that a $40 cartridge I purchase at Office Depot is a sample?

I didn't think so. The reason why I only get 50 pages is because I rarely print anything. So the printer decides that the "lifetime" of the ink is expiring [about.com], so it goes ahead and shuts down the cartridge or uses more ink.

Re:Epson ?

[McGregorMortis]

My money goes to Canon. I had an Epson printer for a while, and it sucked ass with a huge sucking noise.

My Canon i960, on the other hand, rocks my world...
        - quiet
        - fast
        - never, ever clogs
        - individual ink tanks
        - no chip in the tanks
        - uses a clever optical scheme with a prism in the tank to read the ink level.
        - replaceable print head (not that I've needed to)

And Canon has not engaged in any absurd DMCA or patent barratry against anyone yet (that I know of.) They've just done a fantastic job of not pissing me off, unlike HP and Lexmark.

Ok, their ink cartridges still cost a bundle. And their newer cartridges designs have chips... but they're still the best of a bad lot as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Disposable Razor IS bad

[Anonymous Coward]

*Unless you need to do uber-quality photo prints, ink-jets are relics.

That should read "Even if you need to do uber-quality photo prints".

In the last couple of years all the places that offer photo services have gone out and bought really expensive commercial printers to run off everyone's digital pictures. These things are self calibrating and completely automated. You send your carefully cropped and adjusted jpg to the pimply faced youth at Costco with the box "no auto correction" checked, specify the paper type and size and you will get perfect prints (and identical prints). All they do is load up the image files and press the big green "GO" button. There is nothing they can screw up.

Even the pros use these types of places - it works out cheaper per print than buying your own high-end inkjet and the quality is better than any HP home inkjet. The only things they can't do are really huge prints and weird papers, that you couldn't do at home anyway.

Re:Why not copy Lexmark

[rhombic]

Because Lexmark lost [wikipedia.org]?

Re:Do you really need to print that much?

[BigAssRat]

It isn't that people necessarily print that much. Consider this, if you let the printer sit out for a while without using it then the cartridge will dry up and viola, you need a new print cartridge. You usually discover this about the time you need to print your first e-ticket since the last concert you went to 6 months ago. Then you end up spending an extra 40 bucks on a cartridge because you wanted to save 10 dollars on having the ticket shipped to you.

Hold yer horses

[gtmaneki]

I'm a chemist for a company that makes formulations for the papermaking, mining, and oilfield industries, and I do a lot of work analyzing chemical patents. After reading this article, I see two cases: one full of BS and one that msy sctually be legit.

Case 1. HP suing people for violating their "cartridge design" patents. Without hearing anything else, this sounds like HP's suing people who make replacement cartridges that fit their systems (including any chipping), which sounds pretty low. We've seen this once with Lexmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int'l_v._Sta tic_Control_Components), but Lexmark sued on the basis of copyright and DMCA violation, not patent violation. You mechanical, electrical and computer engineers in the audience can talk about this one better than I can.

Cases 2. HP suing people for violating their ink formulations. (All that stuff about using GC, the "egg yolk" test, etc.) Here HP may not be full of BS. Inks aren't as simple as you might think -- they are highly engineered formulations that must disperse into tiny droplets for spraying by the ink jet, they must not bleed, they must not fade in light, etc. This is on my turf, so I'll lecture for a bit.

The inks are made from specific combinations of pigments and dyes, which could have been used for centuries or been made in a lab last week. The dyes and pigments are then mixed with other chemicals that will disperse them in a solution and keep them from settling over time. The pigment, dye, or dispersant can be a new chemical substance and granted a material patent. The specific combination of ingredients, including how they are mixed together, can be granted a process patent.

Unlike software patents, the patents in the paragraph above cover tangible things (pigments, dispersants, dyes, and formulations). They can be circumvented and you can prove if you are infringing or not with some straightforward lab tests. Some simplistic examples: If HP has a patent on an ink that is 25% A, 50% B, and 25% C, I can sell an ink that is 50% A, 30% B, and 20% C and not infringe. If the dye molecule in HP's material patent absorbs at 590-610 nm and the dye molecule I sell absorbs at 550-585 nm, I am not infringing. Smart companies change the competitor's formula just enough to avoid violating patents, while being able to have approximately the same performance.

HP may find people copying their patented chemicals or formulations and prosecute them to he fullest extent of the law. They may find instead competing companies coming out with similar but noninfringing products at a low price that the consumer actually likes. In that case, hopefully the market will clear things up instead of a bunch of suits.

(Of course the cynic in me thinks they'll still sue the people who are not infringing their material or process patents in the hope of intimidating them.)

Re:Perhaps..

[tylernt]

Unless you're hypersensitive, I wouldn't worry too much. From your link: "Excessive emissions from photocopiers and laser printers are rare if the machines are properly maintained. Their average emission rate is ten to one hundred times below the Permissible Exposure Limits."