They should be fined for generating a lot of unnecessary e-waste as well.
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.
I think the death penalty option is the most reasonable and effective one.
Eventually “passing the cost on to consumers” increases the price so much that the deceptive printers cost more than legitimate ones.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/dyIilW_eBjc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
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.
I’m so tired of everything becoming an ongoing subscription. In the end the most powerful vote we all have is our wallets.
It’s a pretty easy thing to just immediately stop buying from companies that pull this shit.
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.
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.
Please let the judge be an HP printer owner! If so, he’ll completely understand this bullshit.
That’s interesting, in a case like this the chances of the judge owning an HP printer are pretty high.
Would they still be allowed to rule on the case?
With something ubiquitous I don’t think there is a choice.
Think of if the case involved the iPhone or Android. You literally couldn’t find someone that didn’t own at least one of those.
Would they still be allowed to rule on the case?
Judges recuse themselves AFAIK. An appeals court might override and say a judge shouldn’t have been on it but that’s pretty rare. So as long as the judges feels they can remain impartial they’ll be able to preside.
Sheesh, fuck HP.
Got a brand new printer from them a few years back. I think it has printed maybe 3 things. Nope. doesn’t print anymore. Doesn’t scan anymore.
Useless space for a landfill.
Don’t ever buy HP printers…
I switched to Brother years ago for both my personal and small business client recommendations and have never looked back.
