Can I buy cheap Brother printer cartridges at www.ink4less.com?

July 14, 2008

Re: Can I buy cheap Brother printer cartridges at www.ink4less.com?

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> "Michael Johnson" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message

> news:Z4mdnRsOodGl7OfVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@comcast.com...

>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>> Enjoy your class-action suit. I happen to be on the other side of the

>>> issue. I happen to think these anti-trust regs go way too far. If I were

>>> a printer manufacturer and someone else's ink cartridge or other

>>> after-market part caused the damage that an owner is seeking coverage

>>> for, I'd laugh in his face, the law bedamned. AFAIC, that blurb you're

>>> talking about should read, "...may void the warranty" and then add the

>>> explanation that what's at issue is whether the after-market parts or

>>> consumables caused the damage. I'm also a fan of patent rights in most

>>> cases.

>> The Printer manufacturing companies should be held to the same standards

>> as the automobile manufacturers. You wouldn't want to buy a Ford Focus

>> and then be held to buying some proprietary gas, tires, oil etc. that you

>> could only buy from a Ford source would you? Or if you don't use Ford gas

>> you void the warranty? This is essentially what the printer manufacturers

>> are doing to their customers. A chip in a cartridge does nothing to

>> improve its function. It is intended to keep the printer users slaves to

>> the exorbitantly priced OEM ink. This is why we have anti-trust laws and

>> why they need to be enforced against printer manufacturers.

>

> In all automobile warranties, you will find disclaimers that if your vehicle

> is damaged by bad fuel or other consumables, or after-market parts, or

> improper or unperformed maintenance, the damage is not covered under the

> warranty.

Show me a warranty where it states you have to use Ford branded oil,

gas, tires, air filters, oil filters etc.? Laws exist to keep many

companies from gouging the consumer on consumable products necessary for

their operation. Do you really believe it costs Canon more than $4,000

per gallon to manufacture the ink in their OEM cartridges? Now do you

believe they should have the right to force its consumers to pay the

equivalent of over $4,000 for a gallon of their ink? I don't.

> The rest of that paragraph is pure whining. Don't like the way the printer

> company protects its patents, don't buy it. End of story. If people only buy

> printers that are perfectly happy with you using non-OEM consumables and

> parts, that's all there will be left on the market. When that happens,

> you'll start showing signs of severe depression due to not having anything

> to whine about.

I am about as pro business as they come. I am self employed and

thoroughly enjoy making a profit. I also have to be competitive with

the prices I charge my clients because I have true COMPETITORS. The

inkjet printer companies have colluded with each other to keep the cost

of their consumables sky high. They are using every dirty trick at

their disposal to monopolize the market. I don't care what they charge

for an OEM cartridge. However, they have no right to a monopoly over

supplying inkjet cartridges to consumers. When competition is taken out

of a capitalist system it ceases to be fair to the consumer. History

has proven this time and again. If fair competition isn't insured the

whole economic model of capitalism goes to hell.

> <SNIP>

>>> Of course, I'm from the "inkjets are the spawn of hell" contingency, and

>>> when it comes to my own various laser printers, especially the color

>>> ones, I've tried after-market parts and, frankly, they sucked. In this,

>>> I'm with Leythos. And (replying to some other comment in this thread that

>>> I won't bother to locate) if I want a quality color print of photographic

>>> quality, I'll buy it from a decent photo processing company. I like the

>>> few photos I have that are worth printing to last longer than a couple of

>>> years. They tend to go into frames and onto my walls where I expect them

>>> to look just as good when the kids are divvying up the goods as they do

>>> when I hang them.

>> I have inkjet produced prints made with compatible inks that have been

>> hanging on the walls for TWO YEARS. They look just as good as the day

>> they were printed. Any print will fade under direct sunlight with no

>> protective barriers. Even those you have done at a lab. Plus, in the off

>> chance I would have a print fade I can print another one for pennies.

>> Inkjets aren't for everyone but the claims being made about fading, etc.

>> just aren't true and are being exaggerated. I know because my family

>> prints hundreds upon hundreds of photos every year and we haven't had one

>> fading issue or any issue for that matter. I'm sure our experience isn't

>> some abnormal occurrence. I read and hear testimonials all the time from

>> people that have the same experience.

>

> ROFL!!! Two years! Oh my goodness, such quality! Photo-quality inkjets

> haven't been out long enough to make any decent judgement about their true

> quality.

I have 30-40 year old photographs that have been sitting in boxes that

have faded. I don't expect them to last forever and neither should

anyone else. This is why I keep digital copies in addition to paper

ones and update the storage medium as necessary. I have even scanned

the old photographs to ensure they will be around for as long as I am.

After that it becomes some else's job.

> I have color Kodak prints that have been hanging on the wall or sitting on a

> shelf, etc., from clear back to the Great Depression and WWII, and they've

> hardly changed a bit. Such durability might not matter to you, but it does

> to me.

There are many old photos that don't last. An inkjet print will last

just as long if stored properly.

> I just realized, this thread boils down to those who are just plain cheap

> (in a self-deluding way) and don't really care about quality, and those who

> prefer quality and durability and the efficiency that goes along with that

> paradigm. Oh, and those who like to get involved in causes, <yawn>. Pretty

> much covers the gamut, I'd say. Could easily divvy up all of society,

> worldwide, along such lines. Unfortunately, cheap always seems to win, to

> the extent of forcing quality completely out of the picture.

>

> Cheap and whiny. Yup, that pretty much covers it. That's why, for instance,

> when I go out to shop for a new desktop phone in a few minutes, I'm going to

> come back entirely pissed off, with a cheap POS I'm likely to smash against

> the wall within a year. Because the cheap whiners forced quality into a

> grave.

You say cheap and I say using your money wisely. I have saved thousands

of dollars using compatible ink and have yet to see where my family has

taken a hit in quality or longevity. I have the original digital files

if there ever is an issue and can reproduce copies at will. You need to

quit living in the past. The good old days weren't really that good.

You want to know why so many electronic items are disposable? It is

because technology is moving so fast that many things become obsolete

before they wear out. If you really like the old stuff then buy a

vintage TV with a mechanical tuner, a telephone with a dial, a microwave

without a key pad, a car with a carburetor and an old PC sporting

MS-DOS. They can be purchased still and will function just fine for

you. So I say you should backup your bitching and complaining and go

retro for everything you use in your life. BTW, why do you need a fancy

new phone when you can buy an old bullet proof model at a thrift shop or

off of ebay?

July 14, 2008

Re: Can I buy cheap Brother printer cartridges at www.ink4less.com?

Michael Johnson wrote:

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> Enjoy your class-action suit. I happen to be on the other side of the

>> issue. I happen to think these anti-trust regs go way too far. If I

>> were a printer manufacturer and someone else's ink cartridge or other

>> after-market part caused the damage that an owner is seeking coverage

>> for, I'd laugh in his face, the law bedamned. AFAIC, that blurb

>> you're talking about should read, "...may void the warranty" and then

>> add the explanation that what's at issue is whether the after-market

>> parts or consumables caused the damage. I'm also a fan of patent

>> rights in most cases.

>

> The Printer manufacturing companies should be held to the same

> standards as the automobile manufacturers. You wouldn't want to buy a

> Ford Focus

A Ford Focus is crap when compared to a Honda Civic or a Toyota

Corolla. Maybe a Focus owner who would buy that would also buy

aftermarket ink.

> and then be held to buying some proprietary gas, tires, oil etc. that

> you could only buy from a Ford source would you? Or if you don't use

> Ford gas you void the warranty?

Stupid argument.

> This is essentially what the printer manufacturers are doing to their

> customers.

No they are not.

> A chip in a cartridge does nothing to improve its function.

While I do not like them they do provide a function.

> It is intended to keep the printer users slaves to the exorbitantly

> priced OEM ink. This is why we have anti-trust laws and why they need

> to be enforced against printer manufacturers.

And that is why the mfg win all of the suits against the whores.

>

>> Anyway, thanks for the more complete explanation. I was concerned

>> that your first contribution here might lead the OP astray. After

>> all, it all comes down to what the warranty actually says. A simple

>> consumer

and that you are

>> can't be expected to delve further into the archana of laws, etc., to

>> figure out if there's a loophole or not. If the warranty happens to

>> be unenforceable in my jurisdiction, it's not like I'm going to spend

>> valuable time and money to fight the company (at least, I wouldn't

>> have when I was still in business.)

>>

>> Of course, I'm from the "inkjets are the spawn of hell" contingency,

>> and when it comes to my own various laser printers, especially the

>> color ones, I've tried after-market parts and, frankly, they sucked.

>> In this, I'm with Leythos. And (replying to some other comment in

>> this thread that I won't bother to locate) if I want a quality color

>> print of photographic quality, I'll buy it from a decent photo

>> processing company. I like the few photos I have that are worth

>> printing to last longer than a couple of years. They tend to go into

>> frames and onto my walls where I expect them to look just as good

>> when the kids are divvying up the goods as they do when I hang them.

>

> I have inkjet produced prints made with compatible inks that have been

> hanging on the walls for TWO YEARS. They look just as good as the day

> they were printed. Any print will fade under direct sunlight with no

> protective barriers. Even those you have done at a lab. Plus, in the

> off chance I would have a print fade I can print another one for

> pennies. Inkjets aren't for everyone but the claims being made about

> fading, etc. just aren't true and are being exaggerated. I know

> because my family prints hundreds upon hundreds of photos every year

> and we haven't had one fading issue or any issue for that matter. I'm

> sure our experience isn't some abnormal occurrence. I read and hear

> testimonials all the time from people that have the same experience.

>

>> Congrats on the Awards.

>>

July 14, 2008