Test's on 3rd Party Inks

Here's an article I found about 3rd party (non OEM) inks, may be
interesting for you to read-:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,942656,00.asp

and here's a snippet
We printed several types of files (including those with solid color
blocks, text, graphics, and photos) on both inexpensive, multipurpose
paper and expensive, glossy photo paper. We then ran the printouts
through the following tests.

~and~[quote:5793904ff4]
Issues not covered by our tests are how third-party inks hold up over
time and how they might affect your printer's performance over time—a
very controversial issue. The third-party ink sellers say there is no
risk to using their products. But representatives from Canon and
Hewlett-Packard warn that if a third-party ink cartridge damages a
part—clogging a printhead, for example—the warranty for that part
would be void. Let the buyer beware.[/quote:5793904ff4]

Lot more to read so well worth a peep.

Davy

Davy wrote:

Here's an article I found about 3rd party (non OEM) inks, may be
interesting for you to read-:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,942656,00.asp

and here's a snippet

We printed several types of files (including those with solid color

blocks, text, graphics, and photos) on both inexpensive, multipurpose
paper and expensive, glossy photo paper. We then ran the printouts
through the following tests.

~and~[quote:5793904ff4]
Issues not covered by our tests are how third-party inks hold up over
time and how they might affect your printer's performance over time�a
very controversial issue. The third-party ink sellers say there is no
risk to using their products. But representatives from Canon and
Hewlett-Packard warn that if a third-party ink cartridge damages a
part�clogging a printhead, for example�the warranty for that part
would be void. Let the buyer beware.[/quote:5793904ff4]

Lot more to read so well worth a peep.

Davy


How about if through the use of Canon's OEM ink, as an alternative, they
bankrupt my wallet. Would Canon be willing to replace the contents then? :-)

-Taliesyn

In article ,
lid (Davy) wrote:

But representatives from Canon and Hewlett-Packard warn that if a
third-party ink cartridge damages a part—clogging a printhead, for
example—the warranty for that part would be void. Let the buyer
beware.

This is a scare tactic which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been
used. It's unlikely to stand up in court and the manufacturers know this.
Consequently, they're unlikely ever to let it reach court. Once they've
had a ruling against them, they won't be able to scare people with the
threat.

Jon.

Davy wrote:
Here's an article I found about 3rd party (non OEM) inks, may be
interesting for you to read-:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,942656,00.asp

and here's a snippet

We printed several types of files (including those with solid color

blocks, text, graphics, and photos) on both inexpensive, multipurpose
paper and expensive, glossy photo paper. We then ran the printouts
through the following tests.

~and~[quote:5793904ff4]
Issues not covered by our tests are how third-party inks hold up over
time and how they might affect your printer's performance over time�a
very controversial issue. The third-party ink sellers say there is no
risk to using their products. But representatives from Canon and
Hewlett-Packard warn that if a third-party ink cartridge damages a
part�clogging a printhead, for example�the warranty for that part
would be void. Let the buyer beware.[/quote:5793904ff4]

Lot more to read so well worth a peep.

Davy

Excuse me Davy...but the relevance of this article has been greatly
diminished since it was penned over three years ago. 3rd party inks are
now accepted as being equivalent in all aspects (except cost) to oem. No
manufacturer will void any warranty because of their use.
BTW, this is measher****head's favorite article. He keeps a copy of it
under his pillow for quick reference.
Frank

Frankwrote:
quote="Frank"
Excuse me Davy...but the relevance of this article has been greatly
diminished since it was penned over three years ago.

Well I'll be damned it was dated 11.05.02, I never checked, thanks for
pointing it out Frank.

At least I've got the wooden spoon out...!

Davy

Frank wrote:

Davy wrote:

Here's an article I found about 3rd party (non OEM) inks, may be
interesting for you to read-:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,942656,00.asp

and here's a snippet

We printed several types of files (including those with solid color


blocks, text, graphics, and photos) on both inexpensive, multipurpose
paper and expensive, glossy photo paper. We then ran the printouts
through the following tests.

~and~[quote:5793904ff4]
Issues not covered by our tests are how third-party inks hold up over
time and how they might affect your printer's performance over time�a
very controversial issue. The third-party ink sellers say there is no
risk to using their products. But representatives from Canon and
Hewlett-Packard warn that if a third-party ink cartridge damages a
part�clogging a printhead, for example�the warranty for that part
would be void. Let the buyer beware.[/quote:5793904ff4]

Lot more to read so well worth a peep.

Davy

Excuse me Davy...but the relevance of this article has been greatly
diminished since it was penned over three years ago. 3rd party inks
are never accepted as being equivalent in any aspect (except cost) to
oem. No manufacturer will void any warranty because of their use
unless it was proved to have ruined the printer.

Frank

Accepted by whom? I find no evidence of this on Canon's, Epson's,
or Lexmark's sites. Could you provide a reference to show that
the manufacturers now agree that all third party inks are ok and
won't cause damage or void warranties?

Or did you just mean "accepted as being equivalent in all aspects"
by a few people who post in this newsgroup?

Frank wrote:

Excuse me Davy...but the relevance of this article has been greatly
diminished since it was penned over three years ago. 3rd party inks are
now accepted as being equivalent in all aspects (except cost) to oem. No
manufacturer will void any warranty because of their use.

Mike Berger wrote:
Accepted by whom? I find no evidence of this on Canon's, Epson's,
or Lexmark's sites. Could you provide a reference to show that
the manufacturers now agree that all third party inks are ok and
won't cause damage or void warranties?

Or did you just mean "accepted as being equivalent in all aspects"
by a few people who post in this newsgroup?

Frank wrote:


Excuse me Davy...but the relevance of this article has been greatly
diminished since it was penned over three years ago. 3rd party inks
are now accepted as being equivalent in all aspects (except cost) to
oem. No manufacturer will void any warranty because of their use.


Well Mike...just how big do you think the after market ink business is?
Would you say as big as or bigger than the oem market? Bigger than "a
few people who post in this newsgroup"? I'd guess both. More than a few
who post here (self included) have used strictly after market inks for
almost ten years in our HP's, Canon's, Epson's and Lexmark's that I am
aware of. I've personally had 2 HP's, one Epson and one Canon replaced
under warranty over the years while using after market inks and I told
them up front what I was using.
No where in any warranty from these manufacturers have I seen, read or
heard about warranties being voided by using after market inks.
Have you?
Frank

"Davy" wrote in message
...
[...]
representatives from Canon and
Hewlett-Packard warn that if a third-party ink cartridge damages a
part clogging a printhead, for example the warranty for that part
would be void. Let the buyer beware

But they have to first prove that the 3rd party inks did indeed cause the
clog - and unless the are going to do an extreme scientific examination of
the heads that's not possible to do.

Accepted by whom? I find no evidence of this on Canon's, Epson's,
or Lexmark's sites. Could you provide a reference to show that
the manufacturers now agree that all third party inks are ok and
won't cause damage or void warranties?

Or did you just mean "accepted as being equivalent in all aspects"
by a few people who post in this newsgroup?

Magnuson Moss Warranty Act
US Code - Title 15, Chapter 50, Sections 2301-2312
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/...s/warranty.htm

Other countries have similar provisions. Basicly a MFG can not as a
condition of the warranty say you must use their consumables unless
they provide the product freely during the warranty period whether it
be car or printer. Now if your printer failed and if it was a direct
result of using some other guy's product, sure they can deny the
warranty. They just can't because you used the other guy's product,
not unless they want to take it up with the FTC or equilevent agency.

I disagree that the other guy's ink is equilivent in all aspects.
After all in all likelyhood the ink is protected by a patent and you
can't duplicate it exactly, unless the OEM decides to sell their stuff
in bulk aftermarket. In other cases ink totally different... like if
for example you wanted to shove pigment based inks down a dye printer
or use a solvent other than water, but this isn't your bargin hunter
equilivent ink. I feel it's more of a question of can you see the
difference, and if you can do you care.