{"id":8892,"date":"2014-02-01T22:29:51","date_gmt":"2014-02-02T03:29:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/?p=8892"},"modified":"2014-10-30T23:01:36","modified_gmt":"2014-10-31T03:01:36","slug":"hp-uses-education-to-rid-the-markets-of-infringing-consumables","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/news-briefing\/2014\/02\/hp-uses-education-to-rid-the-markets-of-infringing-consumables\/","title":{"rendered":"HP Uses Education to Rid the Markets of Infringing Consumables"},"content":{"rendered":"

The American author and poet Maya Angelou once said, \u201cWhen you know better, you do better.\u201d Hewlett Packard appears to have taken Dr. Angelou\u2019s words to heart in its ongoing effort to eradicate from the market cartridges that violate its intellectual property. Rather than file a bunch of lawsuits to protect its IP, over the past few months, the OEM has launched an educational initiative so the industry will know better than to market infringing consumables for LaserJet machines.<\/p>\n

The educational campaign began last year when HP set up to explain how chips used on certain third-party toner cartridges are violating its trademarks and branding and misleading the end user. The firm published a technical white paper in the autumn detailing the problem as well as how it can be avoided. It also dispatched representatives to educate remanufacturers as to how the microchips they use to produce non-OEM cartridges can be designed to prevent their products from generating erroneous messages. In December, the company updated the white paper and it appears it will continue to dispatch HP representatives to spread the word in 2014.<\/p>\n

Hip to the Chip<\/strong><\/p>\n

The OEM\u2019s chip program seeks to ensure the messaging functionality built into certain cartridges and printers can properly identify the consumables being employed by the device and communicate that information to the device\u2019s front panel user interface. The white paper explains that chips are programmed to distinguish between a \u201cgenuine HP\u201d cartridge and a \u201cnon-HP supply.\u201d It contends that \u201cManufacturers of aftermarket chips deliberately identify themselves as \u2018genuine HP\u2019 in order to more favorably position their products with their customers.\u201d HP then warns, \u201cCartridges that misidentify themselves as HP when they are really alternatives are counterfeit or otherwise engaging in deceptive brand identification.\u201d<\/p>\n

HP\u2019s white paper explains that printer firmware looks for messaging code in a single data field on each cartridge\u2019s chip. The firmware then differentiates between OEM and non-OEM cartridges by reading a string of ASCII characters entered into this so-called trademark field in the chip\u2019s data structure. According to HP, third-party chipmakers need only \u201clocate the trademark field within the applicable data structure and change the string of ASCII characters from \u2018HP\u2019 followed by 6 spaces to some other value.\u201d While HP says any other value is acceptable, it recommends that chipmakers insert their own respective trademarks or those of the remanufacturer that is using the chip.<\/p>\n

HP\u2019s concerns are focused on the messages generated by a specific list of SKUs (see table). In its original white paper, which was released in October, the list of cartridges included 22 SKUs that are employed in some 17 LaserJet\/Color LaserJet product lines. When the company then revised the white paper at the end of the year, it added 13 SKUs used in 7 additional product families. HP maintains that for these SKUs, \u201cidentifying a cartridge as non-HP will not result in a loss of features or degraded performance.\u201d Going forward, HP indicates that third-party chip manufacturers must ensure that the functionality in any new cartridges released in 2014 and thereafter generate the appropriate messages.<\/p>\n

Heeding the Call<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"hp\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

HP has been active in getting the word out about the problems it has with certain third-party chips. It is clear that the OEM is serious about dissuading non-OEM chipmakers from the practice of using code that does not identify cartridges properly when they are installed into a printer. The use of terms in the white paper like counterfeit and deceptive brand identification signal that the OEM is not fooling around. Let\u2019s face it, words matter, and the word counterfeit matters a lot.<\/p>\n

As I noted, representatives from HP have been dispatched to explain the chip problem to the remanufacturing industry. Back in October, they traveled to Zhuhai, China to talk about the messaging issues and how they can be avoided. Located in the southern province of Guangdong, Zhuhai is home to many third-party ink and toner cartridge manufacturers along with various companies that make components including chips that support the industry.<\/p>\n

The HP reps attended a gathering of some 200 remanufacturers from more than 40 countries hosted by the Chinese media firm Recycling Times Media Corp. HP\u2019s speakers made it clear that the misleading messages generated by many third party chips infringe HP\u2019s trademarks and mislead end users. Since then, HP has sent speakers to similar events including the Paperworld show held in Frankfurt, Germany at the end of January.<\/p>\n

Many third-party chipmakers and their customers have heeded HP\u2019s warning. At the time of the Zhuhai event, HP\u2019s reps identified Static Control Components as the lone firm marketing chips that properly differentiated OEM from reman cartridges. Since that time, various firms including the German remanufacturer supplier Delacamp along with third-party supplies vendors like Ninestar and Print-Rite have issued statements saying their chips or remanufactured cartridges generate the appropriate messages.<\/p>\n

Not an Empty Warning<\/strong><\/p>\n

Companies that market third-party consumables for LaserJet machines should realize that HP can\u2014and most likely will\u2014initiate legal actions against those who do not heed its warnings. HP is a successful litigator with a long track record of lawsuit wins dating back to the 1990s. While most of HP\u2019s past lawsuits were centered on inkjet cartridges, things appear to be changing. HP\u2019s legal group is showing a new willingness to protect the market for LaserJet-branded supplies. In 2013, HP sued the giant online retailer LD Products for violating the Lanham Act and various other laws by falsely marketing and selling new-built compatible LaserJet cartridges as remanufactured. I suspect that was only the first suit involving toner cartridges and with the chip issue more will follow.<\/p>\n

With that said, I find HP\u2019s decision to educate rather than automatically initiate lawsuits refreshing. On our website, http:\/\/www.Action-Intell.com<\/a>, we follow intellectual-property issues closely. Unfortunately, it seems that certain OEMs use their IP more as a weapon than as a shield to protect their products and business. For the past couple of years, for example, Lexmark has leveraged a quirk in U.S. patent law to the detriment of its channel, in my opinion. The firm has accused scores of companies of marketing remanufactured cartridges that violate its patents simply because the empty cartridge being refurbished was first sold outside of the country. A technicality in U.S. patent law requires a product to be sold in the U.S. in order for a patent holder to lose its rights. Because it retains its patent protections, Lexmark has warned companies to sell its consumables exclusively or else risk a lawsuit. So much for a free market!<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t get me wrong, gentle reader. HP is not to be trifled with when it comes to IP. The OEM has hauled plenty of companies into court and that will continue. I fully expect that after some period of time, HP will shift from its role as an \u201ceducator\u201d to that of an \u201cenforcer.\u201d When that day comes, any claims that a firm may make that it didn\u2019t know any better than to use IP infringing chips will sound hollow.<\/p>\n

Not an Empty Warning<\/strong><\/p>\n

Companies that market third-party consumables for LaserJet machines should realize that HP can\u2014and most likely will\u2014initiate legal actions against those who do not heed its warnings. HP is a successful litigator with a long track record of lawsuit wins dating back to the 1990s. While most of HP\u2019s past lawsuits were centered on inkjet cartridges, things appear to be changing. HP\u2019s legal group is showing a new willingness to protect the market for LaserJet-branded supplies. In 2013, HP sued the giant online retailer LD Products for violating the Lanham Act and various other laws by falsely marketing and selling new-built compatible LaserJet cartridges as remanufactured. I suspect that was only the first suit involving toner cartridges and with the chip issue more will follow.<\/p>\n

With that said, I find HP\u2019s decision to educate rather than automatically initiate lawsuits refreshing. On our website, http:\/\/www.Action-Intell.com<\/a>, we follow intellectual-property issues closely. Unfortunately, it seems that certain OEMs use their IP more as a weapon than as a shield to protect their products and business. For the past couple of years, for example, Lexmark has leveraged a quirk in U.S. patent law to the detriment of its channel, in my opinion. The firm has accused scores of companies of marketing remanufactured cartridges that violate its patents simply because the empty cartridge being refurbished was first sold outside of the country. A technicality in U.S. patent law requires a product to be sold in the U.S. in order for a patent holder to lose its rights. Because it retains its patent protections, Lexmark has warned companies to sell its consumables exclusively or else risk a lawsuit. So much for a free market!<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t get me wrong, gentle reader. HP is not to be trifled with when it comes to IP. The OEM has hauled plenty of companies into court and that will continue. I fully expect that after some period of time, HP will shift from its role as an \u201ceducator\u201d to that of an \u201cenforcer.\u201d When that day comes, any claims that a firm may make that it didn\u2019t know any better than to use IP infringing chips will sound hollow.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The American author and poet Maya Angelou once said, \u201cWhen you know better, you do better.\u201d Hewlett Packard appears to have taken Dr. Angelou\u2019s words to heart in its ongoing effort to eradicate from the market cartridges that violate its intellectual property. Rather than file a bunch of lawsuits to protect its IP, over the past few months, the OEM has launched an educational initiative so the industry will know better than to market infringing consumables for LaserJet machines. The educational campaign began last year when HP set up to explain how chips used on certain third-party toner cartridges are violating its trademarks and branding and misleading the end user. The firm published a technical white paper in the autumn detailing the problem as well as how it can be avoided. It also dispatched representatives to educate remanufacturers as to how the microchips they use to produce non-OEM cartridges can be designed to prevent their products from generating erroneous messages. In December, the company updated the white paper and it appears it will continue to dispatch HP representatives to spread the word in 2014. Hip to the Chip The OEM\u2019s chip program seeks to ensure the messaging functionality built into certain cartridges and printers can properly identify the consumables being employed by the device and communicate that information to the device\u2019s front panel user interface. The white paper explains that chips are programmed to distinguish between a \u201cgenuine HP\u201d cartridge and a \u201cnon-HP supply.\u201d It contends that \u201cManufacturers of aftermarket chips deliberately identify themselves as \u2018genuine HP\u2019 in order to more favorably position their products with their customers.\u201d HP then warns, \u201cCartridges that misidentify themselves as HP when they are really alternatives are counterfeit or otherwise engaging in deceptive brand identification.\u201d HP\u2019s white paper explains that printer firmware looks for messaging code in a single data field on each cartridge\u2019s chip. The firmware then differentiates between OEM and non-OEM cartridges by reading a string of ASCII characters entered into this so-called trademark field in the chip\u2019s data structure. According to HP, third-party chipmakers need only \u201clocate the trademark field within the applicable data structure and change the string of ASCII characters from \u2018HP\u2019 followed by 6 spaces to some other value.\u201d While HP says any other value is acceptable, it recommends that chipmakers insert their own respective trademarks or those of the remanufacturer that is using the chip. HP\u2019s concerns are focused on the messages generated by a specific list of SKUs (see table). In its original white paper, which was released in October, the list of cartridges included 22 SKUs that are employed in some 17 LaserJet\/Color LaserJet product lines. When the company then revised the white paper at the end of the year, it added 13 SKUs used in 7 additional product families. HP maintains that for these SKUs, \u201cidentifying a cartridge as non-HP will not result in a loss of features or degraded performance.\u201d Going forward, HP indicates that third-party chip manufacturers must ensure that the functionality in any new cartridges released in 2014 and thereafter generate the appropriate messages. Heeding the Call   HP has been active in getting the word out about the problems it has with certain third-party chips. It is clear that the OEM is serious about dissuading non-OEM chipmakers from the practice of using code that does not identify cartridges properly when they are installed into a printer. The use of terms in the white paper like counterfeit and deceptive brand identification signal that the OEM is not fooling around. Let\u2019s face it, words matter, and the word counterfeit matters a lot. As I noted, representatives from HP have been dispatched to explain the chip problem to the remanufacturing industry. Back in October, they traveled to Zhuhai, China to talk about the messaging issues and how they can be avoided. Located in the southern province of Guangdong, Zhuhai is home to many third-party ink and toner cartridge manufacturers along with various companies that make components including chips that support the industry. The HP reps attended a gathering of some 200 remanufacturers from more than 40 countries hosted by the Chinese media firm Recycling Times Media Corp. HP\u2019s speakers made it clear that the misleading messages generated by many third party chips infringe HP\u2019s trademarks and mislead end users. Since then, HP has sent speakers to similar events including the Paperworld show held in Frankfurt, Germany at the end of January. Many third-party chipmakers and their customers have heeded HP\u2019s warning. At the time of the Zhuhai event, HP\u2019s reps identified Static Control Components as the lone firm marketing chips that properly differentiated OEM from reman cartridges. Since that time, various firms including the German remanufacturer supplier Delacamp along with third-party supplies vendors like Ninestar and Print-Rite have issued statements saying their chips or remanufactured cartridges generate the appropriate messages. Not an Empty Warning Companies that market third-party consumables for LaserJet machines should realize that HP can\u2014and most likely will\u2014initiate legal actions against those who do not heed its warnings. HP is a successful litigator with a long track record of lawsuit wins dating back to the 1990s. While most of HP\u2019s past lawsuits were centered on inkjet cartridges, things appear to be changing. HP\u2019s legal group is showing a new willingness to protect the market for LaserJet-branded supplies. In 2013, HP sued the giant online retailer LD Products for violating the Lanham Act and various other laws by falsely marketing and selling new-built compatible LaserJet cartridges as remanufactured. I suspect that was only the first suit involving toner cartridges and with the chip issue more will follow. With that said, I find HP\u2019s decision to educate rather than automatically initiate lawsuits refreshing. On our website, http:\/\/www.Action-Intell.com, we follow intellectual-property issues closely. Unfortunately, it seems that certain OEMs use their IP more as a weapon than as a shield to protect their products and business. For the past couple of years, for example, Lexmark has leveraged a quirk in U.S. patent law to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1649,1814,1642],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8892"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/58"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8892"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8892\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8896,"href":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8892\/revisions\/8896"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.enxmag.com\/twii\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}