Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 461 posts

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#161

Post by greiskul »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #52
CoastalCoder wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious if this violates U.S. code 1030(a)(5) [0] "(5) (A)knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; (B)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or (C)intentionally accesses a protected…

Are we even sure that the customers legally own the printers? For instance, has anyone bothered to read the EULA that came with whatever bundled software someone installs now days to get the printer driver working? Even if there isn't surreptitious transfer of the hardware, they could certainly have a clause in there that authorizes them to do such things.

That's not how sale of physical products work. If you go to a store and buy a box and take it home, without the people at the store making you read and sign a contract, you own it.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#162

Post by gabereiser »

auggierose wrote: post #16
gabereiser wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not, they were sued for this practice a few years ago. They continue to do it.

Did they lose the lawsuit?

https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/11/23635168/hp-printer-updat...

https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-hp-prin...

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#163

Post by ClumsyPilot »

jorvi wrote: post #146
crazygringo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporate fines just end up being passed on to workers No they don't, they get passed on to shareholders. The market cap of the company decreases by the amount of the fine (plus any predicted future effect of the lost money) and the stock price goes down to reflect that. If the company could get away with paying workers less or decreasing its workforce in order to boost profitability, it already would have. It's no…

Pretty much. Yesterday I wanted to grab some Fanta for in the park. A 0.33L can would’ve been too little, but a 1L bottle too much, and a 1.5L bottle far too much. 0.50L was the perfect size. The pricing? 0.33L - €0.66 (€2.00 per L) 0.50L - €1.48 (€2.96 per L) 1.00L - €1.93 (€1.93 per L) 1.50L - €2.09 (€1.39 per L) Initially this made me angry, as it is very clear they figured out that the 0.5L bottle is the most con…

> This is also why you should never feel bad if you can get one over on a company. Pricing error that gets you expensive shoes for €1? Screw ‘em. Contractual obligation that effectively gives you lifetime for €1? Screw ‘em. They’ll do the same to you whenever they can

I recently saw a £700 bicycle carbon fork on sale for £70, new, the shop just forgot a zero. I didnt buy it out of feeling bad :(

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#164

Post by pessimizer »

oxfordmale wrote: post #91
mcny wrote: post #12

The CEO and the board must serve prison time for things like this. No measure less than prison for the CEO and all board members is enough to curtail this because it just becomes the cost of doing business. No, you can’t say it wasn’t your decision. If you want to not be held accountable for the work your employees, contractors, and agents do on your behalf, you should have to prove they acted against your express wr…

Just stop buying HP printers. If you bought and it is still under warranty, ask for a full refund. You likely won't get it, but make sure HP waste as much time as possible dealing with this In the UK it is even worth considering to take this to the small claims court. Of course seek legal advice first. The only way HP gets away with this, because people just accept this kind of behaviour.

> The only way HP gets away with this, because people just accept this kind of behaviour.

No, the way they get away with it is to collude, and make sure customers have no other choices.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#165

Post by charcircuit »

option wrote: post #81
gameman144 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think prison time is even what's needed here, I think these issues would resolve themselves if corporate fines were continually issued, rather than one-off lawsuits. For instance, a standing ruling that if your printer stops being able to print for no reason other than a contract breach, then the hardware is eligible for a refund. We don't need to put CEOs in prison for making consumer-hostile decisions, we j…

the CEO absolutely needs to face prison for this - they basically destroyed other peoples’ property.

>destroyed other peoples’ property.

What property was destroyed? The HP printer still works with genuine ink cartridges and the third party ink cartridge will work for printers that don't require genuine HP ink.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#168

Post by AndrewKemendo »

crazygringo wrote: post #124
anigbrowl wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as if corporate actors are passive non-participants in the political process, abstaining from lobbying or campaign financing. It's much more economical for corporation to influence legislation/regulation than for voters to build a coalition and then try to leverage it to significantly alter the status quo. Ignoring this reality makes idealistic arguments like yours seem naive at best.

No, there's nothing naive about it at all. I'm not making a specific political endorsement here, but if voters elect candidates like e.g. Elizabeth Warren to Congress then you get much stronger consumer protections, corporate lobbying be damned. I'm not saying corporate lobbying has zero influence (that would be naive), but if the electorate chooses to care about something, it trumps corporations. This is actually a…

The idea that there’s cornucopias of choice in day to day life for 99% of Americans is absurd

You have to go to extraordinary and extreme measures to break out of the basic choices that you are offered for which the profits all go to the same group of people

There is basically Zero diversity in the corporate landscape for either consumers or workers.

Maybe even if that’s the trend, let’s choose not all live in a pvp hellscape owned by about 10,000 people that enjoy infinite luxury, another 8 million who insulate them by showing that “You too can be a class striver and abandon the working class” and the rest of the 8Billion people slowly killing each other for the scraps left behind as everyone tries to claw their way into the 1% and beyond.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#169

Post by kerkeslager »

crazygringo wrote: post #97
kerkeslager wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate fines just end up being passed on to workers who had nothing to do with the decision. "We had to (lay off 10% of our workforce|cut worker pay by 10%|etc.) because of these unfair fines." Corporations aren't people--they can't make the decision to do unethical things. Yes, I understand the law, I'm saying the law is incorrect. People do unethical things, and people should be held responsible for their action…

> Corporate fines just end up being passed on to workers No they don't, they get passed on to shareholders. The market cap of the company decreases by the amount of the fine (plus any predicted future effect of the lost money) and the stock price goes down to reflect that. If the company could get away with paying workers less or decreasing its workforce in order to boost profitability, it already would have. It's no…

> No they don't, they get passed on to shareholders. The market cap of the company decreases by the amount of the fine (plus any predicted future effect of the lost money) and the stock price goes down to reflect that.

Ehh, if they have to, but execs are going to do their very best not to pass on costs to shareholders.

Even if shareholders foot the bill, why would that be a desirable outcome? Are you arguing that we have to fine corporations instead of holding the decision makers responsible? What do you have against people taking responsibility for their own actions?

> If the company could get away with paying workers less or decreasing its workforce in order to boost profitability, it already would have. It's not waiting for a fine to justify doing so.

But they couldn't pay workers less or decrease workforce, because they needed those workers to execute the unethical business plan. They weren't waiting for a fine to cut workers, they were waiting for the cash cow to stop producing milk to cut workers who were necessary to keep the cash cow going.

Re: HP disables customers’ printers if they use ink cartridges from cheaper rivals

#170

Post by pessimizer »

crazygringo wrote: post #69

I just want to be clear, because this headline is borderline clickbait. HP is not bricking the printers. The printers will continue to work if you put the HP cartridges back in. I'm not condoning HP at all , not in a million years. But the verb "disable" carries connotations of permanence, so it seems like a disingenuous word choice at best, if it's not outright clickbait. Just so people aren't confused here.

> But the verb "disable" carries connotations of permanence

No it doesn't. I can disable the safety catch or disable the alarm just fine without breaking them.

Post reply on HN