Inkjet Wholesale News aims to provide updates on the latest significant occurrences in the field of printing. Whether it’s the launch of a new technology or volatility of market prices, we’ll be here to give you the lowdown on what happened, when it happened, and what it means!
Brother Releases Whitepaper Containing Identification Instructions for Suppliers and Manufacturers
The battle between the aftermarket and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) isn’t something that will go away any time soon. The underlying factors behind this ‘difference in opinion’ are too potent for that to happen. OEMs like to use the razor marketing method to get more profits while the aftermarket manufacturers are using that marketing to their advantage. It’s all about market dynamics which will only get resolved with technological innovation of some kind.
The latest jab or slight pinch in this battle was delivered by the Japanese OEM Brother. Brother recently released a whitepaper focused on identification elements inherent in the chip software programmes of ink cartridges. The whitepaper actually contains identification instructions that aftermarket manufacturers can use while producing their ink cartridges.
The crux of the matter in the whitepaper is this. Brother has basically introduced a number of new inkjet printer models this year. The cartridges used in these new Brother printer models have a new authentication function. This authentication function kicks in after the ink cartridges have been installed.
When the cartridges are installed and the ink volume window comes up, at the bottom, the authentication method is displayed. These messages can either be “Genuine Brother Supply” for genuine ink cartridges and “Non Brother Supply” for generic cartridges.
These authentication messages are drawn from the programming given to the chips with respect to certain data fields. The identification instructions or ‘warning’ in the Brother whitepaper is for aftermarket manufactures to make sure that their cartridges don’t show the genuine message.
In addition to advising aftermarket manufacturers in the Brother whitepaper, the company also went as far as to suggest that suppliers should request the manufacturers to adhere to these instructions.
In a world where most OEMs are actually going after aftermarket suppliers with their legal sticks, Brother seems to have taken a very prudent and measured approach with this whitepaper. What these identification instructions in the Brother whitepaper show is that Brother understands that the aftermarket is not going anywhere and is here to stay.
So, instead of using fruitless attacks against the aftermarket, they seemed to have decided to focus on identification issues through this whitepaper. The idea is that their brand name shouldn’t be sullied by aftermarket manufacturers trying to profit on the basis of their reputation. They don’t want users to use poor generic cartridges while thinking that they’re genuine and then develop a bad impression about the Brother brand name.
While there are many high quality generic cartridges manufacturers and suppliers like us, this move from Brother is targeted at the ones that are in it for a quick buck. As per Brother, they “believe this will be beneficial to everyone concerned in the ink cartridge market”.
Brother also moved to dispel any concerns that aftermarket manufacturers may have about marking their generic cartridges as “Non Brother Supply”. Brother specified in the whitepaper that if an aftermarket manufacturer uses the right techniques to mark their cartridges as “Non Brother Supply”, it won’t affect the quality that they churn out.
They went on to advise aftermarket manufacturers of the benefits of such a move in the whitepaper. According to them, this would help aftermarket manufacturers to “demonstrate” to their customers that their cartridges are quality and certified in their own right.
The whitepaper from Brother contains identification instructions that aftermarket manufacturers can use to make the changes to the messages that their cartridges display to the user. The instructions are fairly clear and easy to implement so that the process isn’t too difficult for aftermarket manufacturers. The whitepaper can be found here.
Hewlett Packard Sued By a Customer in US for False Advertising
HP’s troubles continue as they’ve recently been sued by one of their consumers for wrongful advertising. In recent months, HP has seen a wide variety of troubles coming its way including a number of lawsuits, of which some were class action, and the famed impending split of its operations.
The latest problem that HP will be facing will be a lawsuit filed by one of its consumers, Anne Wolf. Wolf has basically sued the OEM on grounds that its printers “don’t operate as advertised”. The case is significant since it has the potential to receive the class action rating.
The case revolves around the fact that some of HP’s printer models claim to use the HP Smart Install feature. The HP Smart Install feature basically allows the company’s printer to update their software as and when required automatically. In other words, the implication is that they don’t need the input of the user to download updates from the internet.
However, according to Wolf, this isn’t entirely the case. She and her lawyers claim that the advertising from HP implies that these printer models can automatically download updates even when the HP Smart Install feature has been disabled in many of its printers. Despite the feature being disabled, HP purportedly continues to advertise the presence of this feature.
The “false advertising” being questioned here is evident on the package that these printer models come in. Not only are Wolf and her lawyers looking for the court to assign the class action rating to this case but they’re also claiming damages of “more than” five million American dollars. Along with these financial claims, the plaintiffs are also demanding court costs from the financially trouble OEM.
Additionally, the plaintiffs are also looking to keep the OEM from using the same form of advertising on those printer models that don’t support the HP Smart Install feature.
This kind of a lawsuit isn’t something new for HP, which has suffered a number of such legal battles in the past. Notably, in October, 2014 HP settled no less than three class action suits. That settlement meant that HP had to pay $1.35 million to the lawyers of plaintiffs which numbered 122,000.
While only 122,000 people filed claims, the class action was for a whopping 13 million people. The three class action cases stated that HP had “misled consumers” by convincing them that they needed to change their cartridges before they were empty, by not informing them that their printers used colour cartridges even while printing black and white, and by hiding the expiration dates of its printers.
In March, 2012, HP dodged a class action bullet when the judge handling a case against the company refused to give it the class action designation. Even in September, 2011, HP settled two class action cases in the form of coupons for shopping on its website.
The class action cases in this case involved the hard stop coded in HP printers. The hard stop was supposed to occur when the cartridges were empty but it occurred even when there was ink in the cartridges. This settlement cost HP credits worth $5 million.
Leave a Reply