OT: CLASS ACTION AGAINST EPSON

jazzmaster wrote on 5/28/2009, 11:09 AM

Here is a copy of a letter I sent to the California Department of Justice asking for a class action suit against Epson. If anyone is interested, they might to the same in their own state.
Burt Wilson

Attorney General’s Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: Public Inquiry Unit P.O.
Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

RE: CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST EPSON USA

In 2006, Epson USA settled a class action suit against them because their ink cartridges were not empty when the computer screen–an Epson program–said they were. Rebates of $40 were issued to qualified users.

Now it’s time to go after them again!

Epson recently came out with the “Aritsan” series of ink jet computers and at least for this particular brand (I own an Artisan 700 “all-in-one” ink jet printer, bought in March of this year) they have engineered a microchip in their cartridges that prevents an owner from buying ink from anyone except EPSON USA–or their sole outlet in Illinois!

In my case, I went to print a black & white job and the printer said I needed to replace my cyan cartridge. The thing is: the printer shut down from printing anything until a cyan cartridge was purchased and installed. I couldn’t even print my black & white job and it was important. I had to go find another computer and printer to do it! All printing was shut down completely until I bought a new ink cartridge from them.

I’m sure you will agree this is not right. They are holding printer owners hostage for ink sales. We cannot go to a refill place and get cheaper ink. We cannot even get it as Costco, Staples, Frys or anywhere else. We are forced to order it by mail from Epson USA.

When Ford sells a car, it recommends that the owner use genuine Ford parts, but the owner has the freedom to go anywhere in the aftermarket to get it cheaper. That’s the American way of life!
Epson is controlling the entire aftermarket. If they are allowed to do this, the rest of the printer industry will follow suit. The consumer will lose his freedom of choice in the aftermarket.

Please investigate this and start a class-action suit against EPSON USA. I will be happy to participate as the plaintiff.

Back to post

Comments

Steve Mann wrote on 5/29/2009, 9:13 PM

The liquid inside is the cheapest component. The shelf-ready packaging is the most expensive part.

DrLumen wrote on 5/29/2009, 9:18 PM

It's the same with game consoles. Sony loses money when they sell the PS3 but make their money on the games. The companies that make printers are the same. For example, HP makes more on consumables than they make from the printers. That is why they force the use of their inks/toner. It is highly doubtable that it costs more to R&D and fill a small plastic container with glycerol and pigment (regardless of viscosity) than to design a complete printer with thousands of moving parts and circuits.

In the end it all comes down to Caveat emptor. When more people accept this then the less likely that disreputable companies will stay in business. Not to sound callous but if you don't like the way Epson does business then don't do business with them. Whining after the fact and continuing to do business with them only makes you look foolish. Keeping them in business ultimately limits the market as there will be no one to change the status quo and make reasonably priced inks.

TShaw wrote on 5/29/2009, 9:19 PM

"It seems like every three weeks or so, the subject of Epson printers comes up and one camp says that they work fine and the other camp says that they are the biggest pieces of junk ever foisted on the unsuspecting printer buying public. I think it's probably somewhere in the middle."

Also sounds like all the arguing going on all the time over Vegas and SMS.

Terry

blink3times wrote on 5/29/2009, 9:32 PM

"It's the same with game consoles. Sony loses money when they sell the PS3 but make their money on the games."

No... that's not true. It sure is for Microsoft, or Toshiba... etc, but not for Sony.

One thing I have learned through experience with Sony is that (and this is straight from Sony): "There must be a certain profit margin in mind"

This quote was spoken during the HD DVD/Blu Ray format war when everybody was wondering why Sony wasn't dropping their Blu Ray machine prices to match that of Toshiba.

Everything that Sony produces MUST have a certain profit margin figured and that line is respected no matter how tough things get. Even when PS3 sales were dismal... they held the line and while doing so, totally re-manufactured the PS3 so that they could drop its price and hold that profit line.

There is one other thing you're forgetting in your argument as well... the PS3 is a media center as well as a game console. There are those who purchased the PS3 strictly for its player abilities. I've had my PS3 for almost 2 years now.... and it's NEVER seen a game before. Sony's not dumb... they know full well there are lots of people like me out there.

And you can be DAMMED sure that epson, Canon, HP.... isn't losing A SINGLE penny in profit over the printers they sell. Just the simple fact that you can't get anything other than an EPSON dvd/cd printer in the USA... is making epson MILLIONS of extra dollars.

TShaw wrote on 5/29/2009, 9:50 PM

"Herein lies the problem. Competition built this country! Now, the attempt(s) to "limit competition" is what's ruining it. Just my personal opinion."

Well put Jay.

Greed will do more damage to this country then most people think. And for anyone that thinks the economy is going to turnaround soon, .... you haven't got a clue.

Terry

DrLumen wrote on 5/29/2009, 9:50 PM

Yep, wrong again there blink.

"Sony's (SNE) PS3 cost a whopping $691 to build when it first came out, and it sold for a retail price of about $500. Nowadays with better manufacturing methods (and extra components that allowed older PS3 models to play PS2 games stripped out), Sony is able to build a PS3 for an estimated $449, still higher than the $400 retail price."

http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/sony-exec-no-ps3-price-cuts-until-manufacturing-costs-come-down-sne

"While the previous generation PS3 was sold by Sony at a significant loss, which the company made up for via game title sales and royalties, the new version may help stanch the hardware red ink. “With its new-generation PS3, Sony has come closer to breaking even, although it probably hasn’t quite reached that mark yet,” said Andrew Rassweiler, director and principal analyst, teardown services, for iSuppli. “With iSuppli’s estimated PS3 cost at $448.73, the product retailing in the United States at around $399 and taking into account other expenses, the PS3 may be able to break even in 2009 with further hardware revisions.”

http://www.isuppli.com/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=19842

blink3times wrote on 5/29/2009, 9:59 PM

From your link:
"iSuppli's estimates are just that -- estimates "

Also from your link:
"Sony Exec: No PS3 Price Cuts Until Manufacturing Costs Come Down (SNE)"

bigrock wrote on 5/29/2009, 10:14 PM

I took my empty cartridge apart. There wasn't even an inktank. It just used a sponge to soak the little bit of ink that was included in the cartridge.

DrLumen wrote on 5/29/2009, 10:47 PM

How about if you supply your sources instead of talking out of your backside?

And to follow up...
While this is not actual proof that it costs the companies money to produce printers in relation to the retail price, you can easily see (well everybody else will be able to see) that, in this example, HP makes much more off consumables (Supplies) than they do with the actual hardware.

This is from the HP 10-Q filing at the Security and Exchange Commission for the quarter that ended 1/31/2009 and 10/31/2008.

January 31, 2009 HP SEC 10-Q Filing ($ in Millions)

Category 1/31/2009 10/31/2008
-------------------------------------------
Supplies 4,050 4,369
Commercial hardware 1,239 1,883
Consumer hardware 692 1,105
Imaging and Printing Group (Totals) 5,981 7,357

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/47217/000104746909002433/a2190921z10-q.htm#toc_da74501_3

AtomicGreymon wrote on 5/29/2009, 11:21 PM

I've had a Stylus Photo R320 for a couple years now, and I've always been pretty happy with its performance. I mostly use it for direct CD/DVD printing, for which there's no real alternative in Canada, anyway; and the odd document I need a hard copy of.

To be honest, I've never really noticed the cost of my replacement cartridges being unusually high... the thing takes 6 seperate ones at a time, but I can buy all 6 together in a pack from Costco and the price averages out to maybe $11.50 or $12 each. What I have noticed is that the cost of ink for pretty much any brand of printer is a bit high, though. So I don't see why Epson should take all the heat for something that's been a staple of the industry since ink jets came into common use.

As for the first lawsuit... anyone that listens to an on-screen indicator of ink levels is asking for it, in my humble opinion. I've never encountered one that didn't have a disclaimer somewhere saying that it's only meant as an estimate, or something similar. It's an unfortunate fact these days, though, that the vast majority of people who use technology (or probably any kind of product) utterly fail to read any of the instructions or documentation.

Chienworks wrote on 5/30/2009, 5:08 AM

The problem with the Epson is that it doesn't give you the option to ignore the ink warnings. It just stops printing, even if you don't need the ink color that is low. If we could ignore it and keep printing until we decide the print quality is unacceptable that would be ok. The issue is that we're forced to spend money on new cartridges when there's still plenty of usable ink available, at least for a substantial number of purposes.

My HP C5280 will keep printing all the way to the bitter end. It will warn me that the ink is low, but as long as i'm not expecting photographic quality and just need to print out my tax returns or customer invoices, i can get another 25 to 50 pages after the warning. With the old 800 & 900 series i could often get 100 to 200 more pages. That's giving me the choice to take the risk and optimize my benefit. Epson doesn't give you that choice.

MojoJones wrote on 5/30/2009, 5:26 AM

You've got to be kidding...

You actually wrote...
Now it’s time to go after them again!
to the Attorney General’s Office?

.... too funny.

blink3times wrote on 5/30/2009, 6:10 AM

"How about if you supply your sources instead of talking out of your backside?"

And I'll say the same thing back to you. Show me a LEGITIMATE source that says Sony intentionally cuts profits on their machines to make way for profits on their games.

While it is true that Sony is losing money on the PS3 (or was anyway), it has little to do with slashing prices on machines so they could make profit on games. Sony made a mistake with the PS3 and that mistake was figuring that the public would have a want or need for a $700 game console.

These companies are in the business of MAKING money not losing it. To make a media machine like the PS3 and then put profit at risk by suggesting it WILL most definitely come from the games instead is quite simply silliness. Sony hasn't done this with their blu ray players in an effort to get blu ray off the ground.... why would you think they would do it with the PS3? As I said... my PS3 hasn't seen a single game in the total time I have owned it (and it won't). Do you think Sony is so dumb that they can't see this scenario? If they did what you're suggesting.... then they lost all their profits in their sale to me (and thousands like me)

The only people I know that actually do what you're talking about are outfits like cell phone companies... they'll give you a cell phone for nothing..... so long as you sign a contract guarantying a minimum contract period

MojoJones wrote on 5/30/2009, 6:12 AM

perhaps... in UL testing the Epson had shown a risk of fire when printing with low ink levels.

When other brands had not.

blink3times wrote on 5/30/2009, 6:13 AM

"I mostly use it for direct CD/DVD printing, for which there's no real alternative in Canada, anyway; and the odd document I need a hard copy of."

Huh???

Canada isn't like the USA in that you can ONLY buy epson cd/dvd printers. In Canada you can get HP, Canon, and Lexmark cd/dvd printers as well. I'm in Winnipeg and I bought my HP C5280 (cd/dvd) printer right from Future Shop.

craftech wrote on 5/30/2009, 6:23 AM

For those of you who have somehow explained my last post regarding the math (using a very generous 1 oz cartridge example) as coming out to nearly $3840 a gallon for ink by stating that the plastic shells explain the difference and that empty plastic shells with sponges in them must somehow cost a fortune to produce, according to an article in Daily Tech entitled The Ink Cartridge Cartel:

With decent photo inkjet and all-in-one inkjet printers getting cheaper by the day, printer manufacturers are trying harder to hold onto the

Now if anyone has anything concrete that says otherwise please link it because I can't find anything that suggests that those little plastic shells with the sponge in them cost a fortune to produce, but I would really really like to read an article that says so.

John

blink3times wrote on 5/30/2009, 6:53 AM

"Now if anyone has anything concrete that says otherwise please link it "

Nope.... agree with you completely. Although it would be interesting to actually SEE the price of the containers... particularly HP's because the heads are built right into the cartridge.

farss wrote on 5/30/2009, 8:07 AM

I don't have an article but I do have one in front of me. It's a bit more than just a plastic box. There's several plastic moldings that make up the box, they seem to made to fairly tight tolerance as the have to be gas tight until installed and then provide galleries for breathing as well as some clever section that the ink lines puncture.
There's also obviously some electronics in there as there's a double sided PCB with plated through holes with 7 contacts on it, probably more inside plus the sensors that measure ink levels. I'd hazard a guess at around $50K to tool up to produce that plastic box.

Any way, I don't think the cost of ink cartirdges is all that relevant to video editing. On the other hand do you know what those scumbag wedding guys wanted to charge me to shoot my wedding, $500! I even told the guy he'd get a free meal, out the back with the kitchen staff of course. I mean come on, all the dumb jerk's got to do is stand around with a camera all day, how hard is that. The damn wedding's on a Saturday, not like he's got anything else to do on a Saturday now is it.

Bob.

apit34356 wrote on 5/30/2009, 8:29 AM

"On the other hand do you know what those scumbag wedding guys wanted to charge me to shoot my wedding, $500! I even told the guy he'd get a free meal, out the back with the kitchen staff of course. I mean come on, all the dumb jerk's got to do is stand around with a camera all day, how hard is that. The damn wedding's on a Saturday, not like he's got anything else to do on a Saturday now is it." ;-)

Which is more funny today because my niece is getting married this afternoon ;-) What happened to manageable size wedding, like under a zillion people. ;-) I was thinking the recession may slow down the craziness of some of these parties......Na. ;-( If a helicopter and news crew aren't following the party, you are so old news '-)

PS-- I should add that she is a great niece and she really deserves a great wedding and a good life!

baysidebas wrote on 5/30/2009, 11:03 AM

No Bob, the Epson cartridges have no ink level sensors. The little chip simply measures the commanded "use" of ink and electronically counts down until it reaches the projected "empty" level. I have opened Epson cartridges for the R200 and found no connection between the chip and the ink reservoir. I also found that an "empty" cartridge still held about 40% of the total ink chamber volume in ink.

craftech wrote on 5/30/2009, 3:00 PM

Any way, I don't think the cost of ink cartridges is all that relevant to video editing. On the other hand...............
-------------------
Bob,

I find that it costs me quite a bit to print 120 DVDs and full color jackets so not relevant to editing, but certainly to video production.

Maybe it is cheaper to send them out, not sure.

Also,

I get the analogy about the $500 wedding, etc , but don't you think there is something in between wanting something for nothing and blatant price gouging?

John

farss wrote on 5/30/2009, 4:40 PM

"but don't you think there is something in between wanting something for nothing and blatant price gouging?"

No. If there is show me the money. If we're all being ripped off so badly there should be a lot more billionaires on the planet and the rest of us a lot poorer than we are.
Also worth considering that all companies are is just a bunch of people and shareholders, just like the rest of us. Whatever money goes into that company goes around, to the employees and the shareholders. If Epson or Canon are making such huge profits from ripping us off, buy some shares and get your money back.

I've just been involved in a discussion with Hoodman over their SDHC cards, there's are over twice the price of everyone else's. There's are better built so they say. They admit they are still not using the best of class technology. They're still using MLC flash chips not the better quality SLC tech. They'd like to but their setup costs come to around $6M and they'd never get a return on their investment. You can see why, it's just a very tiny plastic box with a couple of chips in it and whose going to pay $200 when they can buy what looks the same for less than $50 even if it fails pretty quickly.

One the other hand where we are being ripped off is by ourselves. We demand and get cheaply built junk that we know is going to fail very quickly and end up as landfill. This is money / human effort / resources going to waste and it costs all of us dearly in the long term. By comparison a friend of mine was recently donated a Nagra recorder. 40 years old and got a lot of miles on it. Still works flawlessly. Sadly one of the few plastic parts had a small crack in it. It only took this guy an email and a phone call to get a replacement part so now it's as good as it was 40 years ago! I wonder how much of the plastic fantastic rubbish we all lust after today will still be servicable in 4 years let alone 40.

Bob.

Steve Mann wrote on 5/30/2009, 6:36 PM

This thread started out silly, and is getting sillier. Let's stop here.

apit34356 wrote on 5/30/2009, 10:14 PM

"This thread started out silly, and is getting sillier. Let's stop here." Na, we need 34 billion refund from big government for those ink thingies................. ;-)

Gee, next thing you'll be wanting to talk real issues...... like.....DVDs, label printing, editing DXCAM ....... ;-)