Judge denies HP's request to dismiss printer lockdown suiit

Comments

• alphacyberranger@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  They should be fined for generating a lot of unnecessary e-waste as well.

  source

  • fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The problem with fining incredibly rich corporations, is they either laugh it off, or just pass that “cost” onto the consumers.

    I suppose the options are things like:

    a) International regulation against “disabling parts of a product without good reason”. Products simply cannot be sold legally

    b) Enforced warning signs on packets (like cigarette packaging) - each HP printer box or online advert must display a warning sign covering 60% of all images stating “We are a predatory company and will disable your products for no good reason”.

    If those don’t work, then death penalty for top 3 highest ranking of the company and top 3 highest paid of the company, per violation, per year.

    source

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I think the death penalty option is the most reasonable and effective one.

      source
    • cadekat@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Eventually “passing the cost on to consumers” increases the price so much that the deceptive printers cost more than legitimate ones.

      source
    • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      my honest and well thought through opinion

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• WilliamTheWicked@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This and almost every other tech subscription style “service” are one of the most maddening things to come out of the tech sector. The need for profit is absolutely out of control.

  source

  • sj_zero ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The way that these companies use intellectual property law to secure for themselves a property right to something that someone else purchased from them ought to be highly illegal.

    I believe there was a supreme Court case I better garage door opener, and the company that made the garage doors was trying to sue because they didn't want anyone using anything but their garage door opener. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that the supreme Court in that case explicitly stated that the purpose of the dmca is not to provide companies with a property right to something that people have already purchased.

    Technology companies just went ahead and did it anyway.
• SeeJayEmm@lemmy.procrastinati.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I have a cheap HP printer/scanner. It works well enough it’s not in the garbage but this and their “I must be signed in” to print bullshit have ensured I won’t buy another HP printer when I either get fed up or it dies.

  source

  • Sarazil@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    They sell the printers at a loss because they then sell the ink cartridges with so little ink in them that some of the padding is still dry.

    source
• oohgodyeah@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I switched to Brother years ago for both my personal and small business client recommendations and have never looked back.

  source