Printer cartridges are a consumer product category with a variety of architectures of control exhibiting characteristics discussed on this site.
Refills for printer cartridges, both DIY and factory-refilled, can be rendered useless by some built-in architectures of control
Aside from the obvious economic lock-in (the razor blade model), there are some specific implementations that are worth detailing further (all are assumed to have commercial benefit and little social benefit; see the diagram for their positioning):
| No. | Example | Details | Notes on ‘work factor’ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | Canon (Japan) printers detect whether or not genuine Canon replacement cartridges are used (the ‘handshake’), and refuse to print if a non-Canon cartridge (often cheaper) is detected. | The Japanese Fair Trade Commission is investigating. Canon has previously lost a case over whether external companies recycling (refilling) Canon brand cartridges infringes Canon’s intellectual property rights [98]. | Refilled cartridges retaining ‘genuine Canon cartridge’ chip possible; Self-refilling is also possible. |
| 26 | Some Hewlett-Packard printers report that printer cartridges need replacement and also shut down the cartridges at a pre-determined date regardless of whether they are empty—even if they have never been used. | The argument could be made that this is to protect the consumer from a cartridge that no longer functions properly due to ink becoming denatured or the print head blocked, but this is a rather weak benefit for the consumer. A Georgia woman is currently suing Hewlett-Packard over this issue, with the suit seeking class-action status [101] | Providing consumers know to avoid Hewlett-Packard printers with the expiration function, they can choose alternatives. |
| 27 | Some manufacturers which produce printers and cartridges under different brands with different pricing levels allegedly permit the cheaper brand’s cartridges to function, but make sure the print quality is poor to discourage consumers from further purchases. | “I have a Dell AIO 920… which is a rebadged Lexmark 1150. Local PC store does Lexmark cartridges for the 1150 that fit the Dell—almost. The cartridge is identical apart from the top cover—it’s a recessed ‘U’ shape on the Dell cartridge, but has a raised diagonal plastic tab on the Lexmark—upshot is, you load it in, close the lid, and all your printing is badly misaligned (colour against black). No way of adjusting it to fit with the supplied software as it is so far out of alignment” [102]. | “Solution? Snap off the diagonal tab—works a treat!” [102] However, if this had been a software issue rather than a simple physical one, there may not be such an easy work-around. |
| * | Lexmark laser printers perform a handshake with cartridges and will not operate with cartridges identified as non-Lexmark. Static Control Components replicated handshake to enable replacement cartridges to work with Lexmark printers [99]. | Lexmark sued SCC under the DMCA; the sale of the SCC handshake chips was banned but the ban was lifted on appeal. “The DMCA was not intended to create aftermarket electronic monopolies…[this] is amajor victory for the consuming public and American companies” (Ed Swartz, SCC chief executive) [100]. | Alternative laser printers available which do not have ahandshake function. |
*This is an example of a company producing a work-around for an architecture of control rather than an architecture of control itself, so has not been included on the numbered list or the diagram
Previous: Strategic intentions | Next: Strategic intentions: a diagrammatic representation
[...] The SmartLogic products seem to fit along with Static Control Components’ printer cartridge handshake chips as ‘fightback devices’ which permit (legally or otherwise) breaking down a designed-in architecture of control in another product and thus giving the customer better value from the original product. [...]
[...] It will be interesting to see how this sits with a) users’ printer warranties, and b) embedded DRM and similar architectures of control in printers and cartridges specifically intended to prevent refilling or make it less desirable to do so. [...]
[...] (See also some other printer cartridge examples.) Please share this!These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
[...] This is definitely a phenomenon worth exploring further, since it’s part of our everyday experience, right under our noses, yet we may not be conscious of it. It’s at the intersection of advertising, marketing and product design, with particular applicability to fast-moving consumer goods. There are some parallels with the Retail Tricks to Make You Shop noted by Space Hijackers, and in the technology field, the manufacturers of printer cartridges have long practised it, whether through technical measures or more subtly (e.g. the Hewlett-Packard MOPyFish). [...]
[...] It’s not clear, though, that this is a standard architectures-of-control-enforced-razor-blade-model of the kind we’ve seen with printer cartridges. Most phone owners surely don’t ever replace their batteries during the life of the phone, so I can’t believe that selling owners batteries can be a major part of the business plan for a new phone. I’ve never bought new batteries for any phone I’ve owned. A friend did, though by that time his phone was six or seven years old and he had to resort to eBay to find the correct type. [...]
[...] Ed goes on to talk about the trend “toward the use of DRM-like technologies on traditional physical products.” (Long-term followers – if any! – of my research might remember this is very similar to the phrase “Architectures of control: DRM in hardware” which Cory Doctorow used to link to my original web-page on the subject), and uses the example of printer cartridge lock-ins (see also here): “A good example is the use of cryptographic lockout codes in computer printers and their toner cartridges. Printer manufacturers want to sell printers at a low price and compensate by charging more for toner cartridges. To do this, they want to stop consumers from buying cheap third-party toner cartridges. So some printer makers have their printers do a cryptographic handshake with a chip in their cartridges, and they lock out third-party cartridges by programming the printers not to operate with cartridges that can’t do the secret handshake. [...]