Epson America, inc Sold me an inkjet printer that will not allow use of third party cartridges in violation of Federal Law. LONG BEACH CA
A Supreme Court decision (Impression vs Lexmark) dated May 31, 2017 stated that it was illegal for a manufacture to produce a product that (in this case) prevented the use of remanufactured cartridges (both ink and toner).
BUT Best Buy sold me an Epson XP-640 inkjet printer on January 14, 2018 in violation of the Supreme Court decision.
Two weeks later the printer locked up saying I was low on ink. Remanufacted (cost effective) cartridges would not work.
Best Buy told me that I needed to buy outrageously priced Epson cartridges.
A subsequent complaint filed with the Iowa Attorney General, File #2018-211865, conveyed the complaint to Epson America.
Epson's resent response baceically says: "Tough - you should have read the box the printer came it".
Don't buy Epson or any other printers that rip you off on replacement costs!
2 Updates & Rebuttals
coast
United StatesRead it again, George
#3Consumer Comment
Fri, March 08, 2019
You are incorrect. The 5/30/17 Supreme Court ruling stated that a company such as Lexmark cannot use patent law to stop other companies, such as Impression, from refurbishing and reselling their branded cartridges. How do you interpret that as a law that forbids a manufacturer from manufacturing printers that are incompatible with the refurbished cartridges?
CARTER
Columbia City,Indiana,
United States
That is not what it said.
#3Consumer Comment
Fri, March 08, 2019
The ruling does not prevent a company from manufacturing system to prevent refills. It does however prevent them from seeking legal action against companies that remanufacture cartridges.
It deals with patents, and with the ability to enforce a patent. It doesn't in no way make it illegal to make a printer that has mechanism to prevent remanufascturing. It allows a company to remanufacture an already used cartridge. IT DOES NOT allow people to make new generic cartridges. IT DOES NOT effect the rights of the manufacturer to build restriction into the product that make it difficult ot impossible.
You would know that if you read any decent summary of the ruling.