Reply to post:

Florida man might just stick it to HP for injecting sneaky DRM update into his printers that rejected non-HP ink

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

It's the Gillette model though where the printer hw is sold at a loss - the price of the ink itself is not the point.

Perhaps there should be two price tiers - the fully costed purchase that accepts third party inks and the gillette model one where the printer is sold at loss but only takes the manufacturer cartridges.

It will be interesting to see how this goes - there was no advertised assurance that other catridges would work from the printer manufacturer. The purchaser took on that risk here.

The terms of sale he assumed were from the third party catridge manufacturer. If anything the third party cartridge manufacturer should be sued, they are the ones who, as part of the sale, told him their catridges would work in lieu of manufacturer catridges, it wasn't HP.

If you used the thrid party engine oil, and the car stopped working, who would you sue?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon