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

91–100 of 461 posts

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

#91

Post by oxfordmale »

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.

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

#92

Post by someweirdperson »

wkat4242 wrote: post #33

I thought all brands used this eco system now with little tanks you can just pour ink in? That's all I see in the shops now. But I just have an old b/w laser

I thought it was only epson. But it seems that cannon and hp offer bottle-fed printers, too.

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

#95

Post by einpoklum »

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.

> HP is not bricking the printers. The printers will continue to work if you put the HP cartridges back in.

That's semi-bricking the printers.

> I'm not condoning HP at all, not in a million years.

You're semi-condoning them.

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

#96

Post by armchairhacker »

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…

How the heck would you create such a law with no unintended consequences? “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 written orders.” So if a low-wage worker goes mad and kills his coworker the CEO should be charged with murder? What if his salary got cut and it was a customer? Where do you draw the line?

What’s needed is regulation and fines, so that it’s not the “cost of doing business” and they lose money (the one thing that dictates their decisions) from this stunt. If there was actually a decent competitor, they could simply be forced to fully refund impacted customers who decide to switch, but HP has basically a monopoly on printers. This is a sign they need to be broken up or put under strict regulation like utilities.

That would a) fully repay affected customers, b) stop the practice for future customers, and c) discourage other companies from this practice. IMO 3 goals, and the only 3 reasons, we have a justice system and punishments in the first place. This isn’t an action which caused permanent, life-altering harm. This is an action which can be 110% undone (via extra fines), so no further punishment is necessary.

And yes, I know petty thieves and druggies serve jail time for causing much lesser problems. That’s wrong too. “2 wrongs don’t make a right”

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

#97

Post by crazygringo »

kerkeslager wrote: post #59
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…

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 not waiting for a fine to justify doing so.

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

#98

Post by janoc »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #75
Bran_son wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, b…

You signed the contract. You agreed to it, it doesn’t matter how one sided it was. You could sign a contract to eat shit for a dollar. You’re correct in that some countries restrict consent between individuals.

That's utter nonsense. You can't consent to stuff that is against the law, esp. when the "power balance" when signing the contract is extremely lopsided. Such contract clauses are routinely ruled invalid and unenforceable.

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

#99

Post by riedel »

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.

They are at a minimum destroying value of the ink, as the ink already put into the printer is useless now. At least the running combination is permanently disabled as long as you do not buy something from HP. With printer prices often as low as the ink prices that is a big deal.

At least they should be required to compensate the users.

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

#100

Post by RobotToaster »

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 being able to hold CEOs and directors vicariously liable for employee actions like this would be a good start.
Post reply on HN