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

291–300 of 461 posts

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

#291

Post by contravariant »

charcircuit wrote: post #165
option wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kind of a weird world we live in where intellectual property gives someone else legal power over what we may do with our own devices, but conversely our ability to do things with our devices that is within our legal right is not considered our property.

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

#292

Post by quantum_state »

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…

100% on the mark!

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

#293

Post by ajsnigrutin »

Can't you just return it? It worked until the upgrade, then it didn't, the update took away a functionality you bought it for, so you can either request a downgrade to a working firmware or a refund?

It would be an interesting case for courts indeed and solve a lot of future problems for consumers.

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

#294

Post by kerkeslager »

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #250
kerkeslager wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I had to double check and you were not responding to me, but yes, it was in fact you who was passive aggressive rude and underhanded with your snide “surely I don’t have to”, conceited, pretentious, snarky response. If you’re going to accuse others of being rude, you should start. This is not reddit. Are you lost? Pretentious pomp should best be left at the door anywhere outside of the reddit quarantine of awful huma…

What normal people are concerned about: "Corporations are destroying people's lives for the profit of a few."

What Hacker News is concerned about: "Someone was slightly snarky in an internet post."

I didn't accuse anyone of being rude. I don't care if you're rude to me. This whole "rudeness" thing is just a transparent way of distracting from the question:

Why can't we hold executives personally, financially or criminally responsible when they make decisions that harm other people?

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

#295

Post by scarface_74 »

PopePompus wrote: post #242
scarface74 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They built computers during that era, but they we never a "player" in that industry. HP was definitely a player in the PC industry and has been the number one manufacturer at different times.. https://statisticsanddata.org/data/best-selling-computer-bra...

Yes, but I would claim that was when they started going to pot. LONG before the PC era, HP made its own line of computers, which were seldom seen outside of labs, and even labs were much more apt to have a PDP-8 or PDP-11. Their move into commodity computers and peripherals moved them from a situation where they were building the highest quality products available, into one where they had no "moat". After all, who wo…

There would never be a moat around mainframe computers as commodity Intel chips became more powerful. SUN, DEC, Stratus, Irix, etc all fail to commodity PCs.

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

#296

Post by dspillett »

> to reduce the risk of malware attacks

What business does an ink cartridge have containing any significant code that could act as malware? What sort of imbecilic or evil (or both) personage designs a system that makes this even remotely possible and then sells it to the general public?

Of course there is no answer to that because it isn't a real reason, it is crap regurgitated by a PR drone who knows next to nothing about tech details and has been told to drop the phrase in to make it look like the company is defending their customers from something rather than being a something their customers need defending from…

(or worse, the PR person knows a bit about tech, so knows the malware angle is complete bunkum, and was actively lying.)

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

#297

Post by SoftTalker »

M95D wrote: post #287
oxfordmale wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most HPs are bought by companies. People who decide to buy HP are not those that use them and not even those that refill them.

My office stopped buying HP printers a long time ago. They buy Ricoh now (actually they lease them with a maintenance agreement).

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

#298

Post by jorvi »

wst_ wrote: post #282
pcai wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just buy 2 of the 0.33L! You already did the math!

I assume it's a can. No go for me. Not sure about OP. The convenience of half litre bottle is that it's relatively small and you can keep it closed.

Yep, exactly this. You can sip from a bottle and put it back in your backpack. A can you have to leave outside the backpack once opened.

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

#299

Post by dspillett »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #163
jorvi wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :(

In the UK at least they can refuse to sell at that price if it is an error. A displayed price is not a contract but an invitation to tender. It only becomes different legally if the low price was a deliberate bait-and-switch thing or similar.

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

#300

Post by hedora »

gameman144 wrote: post #51
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…

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 fine would have to be akin to a corporate death penalty, so that the CEO would never work again. Ideally, it would also pierce the veil of limited liability, so they’d be stuck in court for the next few decades.

For this case, computing back:

94M printers are sold per year.

HP’s market cap is $29 billion.

So, fine them $1000 per printer they sold that has any sort of anti-third-party ink mechanism, payable direct to consumer. (This seems about right to me. It’s less than 10x the retail price of a printer.)

Production of a receipt or a picture of an HP branded printer serial number should be all that is required to obtain the $1000. If they fail to pay in 30 days, individuals can use the mechanism where the sherrif walks into an HP office and takes $1000 worth of stuff on behalf of the claimant.

After 12 months, any unclaimed money gets sent to charity.

As appropriate as that would be, I’d rather see the CEO and execs that approved this stuff go to federal maximum security prison for life than for all the unrelated HP employees to lose their jobs. (Though, arguably, their services would be better used elsewhere.)

Post reply on HN