This may not be new to owners of Canon new printers with CLI8 and PGI5 ink cartridges. I just witnessed that the optical empty ink tank detection mechanism of my ip4300 not detecting an empty PGI5 tank. The tank may have been out of ink for a few hours at least but the printer never gave me any warning nor anything to stop me from using it. If I had not checked the ink tank physically by taking it out to look at it with my eye balls I would have kept printing util the print head burns out. I think if Canon denies warranty had my print head had been burnt out I wonder if I would have a chance to challenge Canon in court. Well, I don't mean to challenge in court but to write to FTC to complain. This seems to me Canon disables the optical detection mechanism deliberately so that you will trash the print head soon after you take the refilling route to save money.
Ip4300 does not detecting empty ink tank
- Thread starter Tin Ho
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,661
- Reaction score
- 1,345
- Points
- 337
- Location
- South Yorks, UK
- Printer Model
- Epson, Canon, HP... A "few"
So, can I just check the situation... Had you refilled the cartridge and then continued to print after accepting the "disable ink detection" feature?
If so, which I think you probably have then you need to consider a few things here.
1. Canon specifically tell you that ink level detection is disabled so you already know this and have no case
2. The way the ink level detection system works now is 2 part.. Part 1 is the prism detection system which detects if ink exists in the spongeless segment of the cartridge and then the chip which counts off nozzle firings based on the estimated "Canon" ink left in the sponge.
The reason you won't win a lawsuit on this is simple.
1. Canon can argue you already agreed to disable the ink level detection so you're already trying to change the rules
2. They will also argue that because other inks will have other properties and they can't possibly take responsibility for a 3rd party product then they opted to make you aware of the risks with the warnings and then disabled the ink level detection to avoid any potential liability.
Ah but you then say that they could have left the prism system working... Well yes they could have but if they had and the ink you'd refilled with still occluded the sensor then you'd still try to blame Canon when again it wasn't their ink and not their fault.
Bottom line, by making the consumer aware of a potential risk and refusing to be any part of the detection of ink levels they are removing all potential responsibility for bad detection. They warn you and you don't look after the ink levels yourself, too bad.. you were warned.
Not that I'm saying this myself but this is their arguement and to be honest it's a very clever, well thought out and frankly good business sense one.
Why do I say this.. Well if you think about the fact that hospital staff in the USA are told NEVER to treat an accident victim outside of their hospital environment because if their well meaning attempt without their normal procedures, equipment, rooms, etc... was to fail they are still liable. If Canon provides a half assed service that doesn't work they are just as liable in the eyes of the US courts so they just say "screw that, you accept responsibility and we're hands off".
Makes sense when you think about it.
If so, which I think you probably have then you need to consider a few things here.
1. Canon specifically tell you that ink level detection is disabled so you already know this and have no case
2. The way the ink level detection system works now is 2 part.. Part 1 is the prism detection system which detects if ink exists in the spongeless segment of the cartridge and then the chip which counts off nozzle firings based on the estimated "Canon" ink left in the sponge.
The reason you won't win a lawsuit on this is simple.
1. Canon can argue you already agreed to disable the ink level detection so you're already trying to change the rules
2. They will also argue that because other inks will have other properties and they can't possibly take responsibility for a 3rd party product then they opted to make you aware of the risks with the warnings and then disabled the ink level detection to avoid any potential liability.
Ah but you then say that they could have left the prism system working... Well yes they could have but if they had and the ink you'd refilled with still occluded the sensor then you'd still try to blame Canon when again it wasn't their ink and not their fault.
Bottom line, by making the consumer aware of a potential risk and refusing to be any part of the detection of ink levels they are removing all potential responsibility for bad detection. They warn you and you don't look after the ink levels yourself, too bad.. you were warned.
Not that I'm saying this myself but this is their arguement and to be honest it's a very clever, well thought out and frankly good business sense one.
Why do I say this.. Well if you think about the fact that hospital staff in the USA are told NEVER to treat an accident victim outside of their hospital environment because if their well meaning attempt without their normal procedures, equipment, rooms, etc... was to fail they are still liable. If Canon provides a half assed service that doesn't work they are just as liable in the eyes of the US courts so they just say "screw that, you accept responsibility and we're hands off".
Makes sense when you think about it.
- Thread starter
- #3
Well, obviously I have a different opinion about this. A couple of years ago there was a lawsuit against HP because they changed the orientation of one of their popupar ink cartridges by moving the factory fill hole from the top of the cartridge to the bottom. I don't remember exactly about it but it was something like that. What happened was many people who were used to refill the cartridge from the factory fill hole were confused and may of them failed to refill successfully. So one of the 3rd party ink suppliers got many of the suppliers together and sued HP. Interestingly the court found HP had no reason to move the orientation of the ink fill hole and ruled and ordered HP to disclose a refilling method for all consumers, including how to unlock the printer's Firmware to alow refilling of the chipped ink cartridge. The court sited that HP's change of the orientation of the cartridge had no beneficial functionality to consumers. They ruled that it was only for the purpose of discouraging refilling by the consumers. I am not quoting the exact wording but this is the best I can remember about it.
In the case of Canon ip4300 and the like the prizm detection mechanism is turned off for no benefit to consumers but to cause the printer to more likely to fail. I am willing to bet that in a grand jury trial this will be easily thumbed down by the jurors. I could agree Canon should be freed from the liability from printer damages caused by using refilled ink tanks. But to disable a functionality which is essential to protect the printer from self destruction when ink runs out is just plain in sane. I can agree that they disable ink level status because refilling does cause ink level to be impossible to track accurately.
What if you buy a car and the manufacturer says you have to use their brand of gas. If you do not they will not be liable for damage of the car. Then they also turn off the gauge of the gas tank, as well as oil pressure sensor... and many other possible safety features of the car. How about turning off the air bag system? What will you think? Don't buy the car? I think most consumers do not know all the above until when they pumped a different brand of gas.
Just my opinion. I talked too much today. Thanks for responding to my thread. Merry Christmas to all.
In the case of Canon ip4300 and the like the prizm detection mechanism is turned off for no benefit to consumers but to cause the printer to more likely to fail. I am willing to bet that in a grand jury trial this will be easily thumbed down by the jurors. I could agree Canon should be freed from the liability from printer damages caused by using refilled ink tanks. But to disable a functionality which is essential to protect the printer from self destruction when ink runs out is just plain in sane. I can agree that they disable ink level status because refilling does cause ink level to be impossible to track accurately.
What if you buy a car and the manufacturer says you have to use their brand of gas. If you do not they will not be liable for damage of the car. Then they also turn off the gauge of the gas tank, as well as oil pressure sensor... and many other possible safety features of the car. How about turning off the air bag system? What will you think? Don't buy the car? I think most consumers do not know all the above until when they pumped a different brand of gas.
Just my opinion. I talked too much today. Thanks for responding to my thread. Merry Christmas to all.
Well then, since you seem to be well versed in the legallity of printer refill obstructionism....Lets start a class action suit. I'll sign on to the complaint as, I'm sure, will many others.
It would be nice to at least get the prizm ink warning up and running again.
Which brings me to a thought. If HP could unlock thier firmware, maybe canon could do the same.
OR
Maybe we can get a hacker to enable the prizm detection function on the canons.
Hey I've seen much tougher things hacked. We need to recruit some hackers.
Theres gotta be a lot of guys from the old DSS forums looking for another day job.
Xalky
It would be nice to at least get the prizm ink warning up and running again.
Which brings me to a thought. If HP could unlock thier firmware, maybe canon could do the same.
OR
Maybe we can get a hacker to enable the prizm detection function on the canons.
Hey I've seen much tougher things hacked. We need to recruit some hackers.
Theres gotta be a lot of guys from the old DSS forums looking for another day job.
Xalky
