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

51–60 of 461 posts

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

#51

Post by gameman144 »

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 just need to also make those decisions bad business.

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

#52

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #31
clipsy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You deliberately misrepresent this as one $80 printer; in reality it is the sum total of all printers bricked by this, plus price gouging the printer owners who don’t want their printer bricked. If even a few dozen printers were bricked by this it would represent more lost value than the threshold for grand larceny in many jurisdictions; do you propose we let people who steal, say, $1600 of goods walk away scot free?…

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.

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

#53

Post by Bran_son »

avewa wrote: post #27
rvense wrote: post #20

Imagine if IKEA sent someone to your house to smash your plates if you used cutlery they didn't like. The CEO and board who are supervising this ought to be barred from ever running a company again.

A more apt analogy would be that you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house at a great discount and in exchange you can only furnish the house with IKEA furniture and then they caught you buying stuff somewhere else and kicked you out. The "smash your plates" part is not adequate because the 3rd party ink cartridges are not being destroyed. If you promise to keep buying IKEA furniture they'll let you ret…

> you entered a contract in which IKEA rented you a house

I love how any interaction with a company means we enter into a one-sided contract with them and own nothing, despite spending money. Don't like it? Just go live in a cave!

If you are making a purely legal argument, then you are on shaky ground, and there are limits to what is considered a valid contract (especially in the EU), and what terms it may contain, but you might persuade a judge.

If you are making a moral argument, it is indefensible.

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

#57

Post by macintux »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #35

Did you know Brother makes really good printers that are inexpensive and live a long, happy, life? And their drivers aren't user hostile? This is one of those really good "vote with your wallets" situations.

During previous discussions about this there have been some comments indicating Brother is headed down this road as well. No idea how accurate that is.

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

#58

Post by wongarsu »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #35

Did you know Brother makes really good printers that are inexpensive and live a long, happy, life? And their drivers aren't user hostile? This is one of those really good "vote with your wallets" situations.

Or buy a laser printer. They cost a bit more upfront, but a single toner cartridge lasts ages (and won't dry out or get used up in cleaning cycles), the printers are generally much more robust and longer lasting, and because laser printing isn't as patent-encumbered there's more actual competition and less outright user-hostile behavior.

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

#59

Post by kerkeslager »

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…

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 actions.

Fining decision-makers might be an acceptable alternative to jail time, as long as the minimum fine is some sort of multiple of profits gained, to prevent criminals from just figuring a slap on the wrist fine into their decision-making math.

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

#60

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN