Stinky Ink News

In a new report just issued by InfoTrends ‘2007 Supplies Recycling: U.S. and Europe’ some very interesting conclusions have been drawn.

Tremendous amounts of printer cartridges are used every day right across the world, and OEM’s and 3rd party remanufacturers are trying to obtain those empty cartridges and divert the empty OEM cartridges from ending up in landfills. OEMs wish to recycle the materials to fulfil their environmental responsibilities, while the 3rd party remanufacturers need the cartridges to maintain their business. Despite these efforts, many cartridges do wind up in landfills. Some cartridges meet this fate without ever having been remanufactured, while some are remanufactured once before going into landfill.

The report raises several interesting issues for anybody interested in reducing, recycling and reusing:

• 1. The OEM’s own program to collect empties generally results in them being broken down into their constituent parts and then the base materials recycled
• 2. 3rd party remanufacturers will almost always re-use the cartridges that they collect following inspection and cleaning.

On the face of it the more environmentally friendly route for the consumer to take is the second, however you should be aware by now that not everything is obvious when it comes to Green issues!. A significant amount of the cartridges collected by remanufacturers are disposed of due to damage or end of useful life, or because they are undesirable cartridges that have little or no value. Also our own experience is that generally the remanufacturers are only interested in ‘virgin’ cartridges that have only been used once. The report contends that half of Europe’s laser cartridge remanufacturing waste is recycled, and 30% of inkjet cartridge remanufacturing waste is recycled or managed in some way. In addition, only about 10% of unusable laser cartridge waste is actually recycled by remanufactures in the U.S., and almost no integrated inkjet cartridges are recycled.

A big issue is the cost of collection of cartridges. When the Royal Mail (in the UK) imposing their new tariffs based on size as well as weight in August 2006, the cost of bringing back empty toner cartridges is actually several pounds more than the value of the cartridge in the recycling chain which became a real issue for us at Stinkyink where we issue a ‘FREEPOST’ label for bringing goods back for recycling.

The report goes on to say ‘ OEM’s and remanufacturers employ different methods and focus on different priorities when dealing with collected cartridges. While some OEM’s do not offer collection schemes for inkjet cartridges, OEM’s recycle the cartridges that they do collect. In contrast, while all cartridge remanufacturing companies surveyed expressed a desire to handle cartridges in the most environmentally sound manner, they also say it is often impractical due to cost and available recycling infrastructures’.

Controversially the report concludes:

• 1. 80% of remanufactured toner cartridges and 86% of remanufactured inkjet cartridges are thrown away because remanufacturers have such a strong preference for cartridges that have not previously been remanufactured (aka ‘virgin empties’)
• 2. Through remanufacturing, 3rd party supplies companies are able, on average, to reduce overall demand for new cartridges by about 20%.
• 3. Remanufacturers surveyed generally were not aware of the details concerning the waste management service providers they utilised.
• 4. Transparent and public reporting of environmental performance was not available from several OEM’s or any of the remanufacturers surveyed
• 5. Excess and damaged cartridges, as well as non-virgin cartridges, may be sold several times to successively lower-quality remanufacturers before being discarded
• 6. There are very few truly local remanufacturers; most local remanufacturers now outsource their products and no longer remanufacture directly
• 7. 16% of toner cartridges and 34% of inkjet cartridge remanufacturers collect cannot be profitably remanufactured
• 8. 3rd party supplies companies collect 70% more empty OEM toner cartridges and 700% more empty OEM inkjet cartridges than the OEM’s themselves.

It’s final conclusion is that ‘overall, however the imaging supplies industry can claim to be effectively reducing the impact of cartridges on the environment’ which is a pat on the back for both the OEM’s and remanufacturers

The full report is available to purchase at InfoTrends.

Just released and available from stock at Stinkyink.Com is a remanufactured Black toner cartridge equivalent to Brothers TN3170. The major benefit of this new cartridge is the cost saving that users are able to experience and also the knowledge that they are recycling the original cartridge.

Now in Stock at Stinkyink Towers is the remanufactured HP Q7551X High Capacity black toner cartridge. This cartridge fits the HP Laserjet P3005 and gives a page yield of about 13,000 Pages for only £64.99 + VAT (cheaper than the original LOW yield HP cartridge). This cartrdige will save you money and help the environment as well

How to dispose of old printers responsibly.

When we first started Stinkyink.Com back in 2002 I bought an HP Officejet V40 all in one Fax/Copier/Printer/Scanner from our local computer superstore. After a few years of sterling service it has been superseded by a super-duper colour laser HP Laserjet 2840 fax/printer/copier/scanner, leaving us with the question what to do with the old one?.

My immediate reaction was that under the latest Waste Electrical Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive somebody (probably me) was now responsible for recycling it. So my task was to find out Who, Where and How?.

It is not easy!. First stop was Google and type in WEEE Directive which takes me to the DTi website . The UK Regulations implementing the WEEE Directive were laid before Parliament on 12 December 2006 and enter into force on 2 January 2007 and have to be complied with by all relevant parties by the 1st of July 2007.

The first paragraph says ‘The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive) aims to minimise the impact of electrical and electronic goods on the environment, by increasing re-use and recycling and reducing the amount of WEEE going to landfill. It seeks to achieve this by making producers responsible for financing the collection, treatment, and recovery of waste electrical equipment, and by obliging distributors to allow consumers to return their waste equipment free of charge.’ This is a pretty black and white statement of responsibility on producers and distributors to take back and recycle all Electronic Equipment at no expense to the consumer.

A bit more reading of some very long and boring legalise basically says that the UK adopted the WEEE Directive back in January 2007 and that it will be legally binding on all Distributors and Manufacturers by 1st of July 2007. This being the last week in June 2007 I thought – no problem pop onto the PCWorld website and type in WEEE and see what comes up. Nothing!. OK lets check the terms and conditions, hmm last updated May 2005 and no mention of WEEE.

The directive actually says that if you are a retail customer, then if you buy a replacement product from the store they have to take back your old item and dispose of it in accordance with the requirements of the WEEE directive (read more here ). That seems fair enough, for both the retailers and the consumers and I suspect that all of the major retailers will be compliant with the requirements of the directive when they have to be. The consumer gets rid of their old electronic equipment and the retailer gets a new sale. The hidden cost of course is going to be bourne by you and some experts predict up to 4% cost increases to cover the recycling requirements.

What about business’s I hear you ask?, not quite so easy for us as a business. I either have to pay somebody to take it away and recycle it appropriately or take it to my local council recycling site for proper disposal. It is my responsibility as a businessman is to make sure that the printer is taken to a properly disposed of according to the requirements of the Directive.

The other thing of real interest to us here at Stinkyink Towers is the recycling of printer inkjet and laser toner cartridges. These have been specifically excluded from the WEEE directive after some very heavy lobbying by the printer manufacturers.

But judge’s rulings affirmed printer maker’s toner-cartridge program

FRANKFORT –Lexmark International lost a court battle on Friday when a jury ruled that it failed to prove that Static Control Components induced toner-cartridge remanufacturers to violate Lexmark patents.

Lexmark had alleged that Static Control, by making a chip that bypassed a Lexmark patent-enforcement mechanism, had encouraged some of its customers to directly infringe on Lexmark’s patents.

And while Friday’s verdict in U.S. District Court was decidedly in Static Control’s favor, it does not nullify the Lexmark program at the center of the case. The judge in the case earlier ruled the program is valid, as well as ruling in Lexmark’s favor on several key issues before and during the trial.

The verdict does not entitle Static Control to seek monetary relief from Lexmark. The company had initially sought damages by claiming Lexmark violated antitrust laws, but the judge threw that claim out.

But Static Control used claims of anti-competitive measures by Lexmark as a defense in the case. The jury agreed, though that portion of its verdict is only an advisory for the judge, who will have the final say.

Static Control hailed the jury’s verdict as a victory for the consumer.

“I think this is a very pro-consumer, money-saving, economically sound decision for the American consumer,” said Static Control CEO Ed Swartz after hugging his general counsel Skip London. “This gives the consumer a choice he would not have, had Static Control not fought Lexmark.”

Cartridges in crosshairs

The 5-year-old case centers on toner cartridges for Lexmark’s laser printers. At the root of it is the Lexmark Return Program(Prebate Program), which offers upfront discounts to toner cartridge buyers if they agree to return the cartridge after a single use to Lexmark and not other remanufacturers. Lexmark then remanufactures the cartridges and resells them.

The presence of third-party remanufacturers has grown over the last decade, siphoning off profits from printer companies who rely on profit-rich ink and toner, since printers are often sold for little or no profit.

The case between Lexmark and Static Control involves only laser-printer toner cartridges. The customers of the Return Program are generally large companies, which purchase the cartridges through contractual agreements.

The case grew out of a past decision by Lexmark to include a chip on its Return Program toner cartridges that determined whether they had been remanufactured. If they had, the cartridge turned itself off and would not print.

The legal battle began when Static Control developed a chip that turned off Lexmark’s, allowing remanufacturers to buy up empty Return Program toner cartridges, install Static Control’s chip and then resell them.

The chip was one of thousands of products produced by Static Control, which helps remanufacturers repair toner cartridges and then resell them.

Lexmark has said the chip violates the single-use patent license it includes on the Return Program cartridges. The company also offers non-Return Program cartridges that come with no license agreement and can be remanufactured by third parties if the customers wish.

Since Friday’s verdict does not invalidate the Return Program, it “kind of maintains the status quo,” said Tom Carpenter, a vice president and senior equity analyst at Hilliard Lyons in Louisville. Carpenter’s firm or its affiliates beneficially owned at least 1 percent of Lexmark’s stock at the end of May.

Charlie Brewer of industry tracker Lyra Research concurred that the ruling doesn’t change the remanufacturer landscape; however, “the aftermarket as an industry will feel re-energized after having lost a lot of high-stakes, high-visibility battles … over the years.”

Brewer said the ruling also crowns Static Control “as the champion of the aftermarket.”

“It re-establishes them as the company that stepped up to the plate and fought all the way,” he said.

Result not one-sided

The case was not a complete victory for Static Control, though, as Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove had ruled against it on several parts of the case before and during trial.

For instance, Van Tatenhove found earlier this month that Static Control directly infringed on a Lexmark patent in the production of an encoder wheel used on the toner cartridges.

The encoder wheel, as well as the chip, were prominently discussed in Lexmark’s closing arguments.

Lexmark attorney Mark Banner said Static Control sold the two parts necessary to successfully remanufacture and sell a working Return Program cartridge.

“They were selling everything you need as a remanufacturer to infringe,” he said. He went on to say that Static Control “knew or should have known” that the remanufacturers were infringing.

In the course of the case, three major cartridge remanufacturers who were supplied by Static Control were found to have violated Lexmark’s patents. The three had made counter-claims against Lexmark but settled and admitted the validity of the company’s patents.

Van Tatenhove also threw out Static Control’s claims that Lexmark violated antitrust laws with its Return Program.

The North Carolina company used anti-competitive allegations, though, as part of its defense, and the jury in almost all cases agreed with Static Control.

It agreed that Lexmark has market power in the aftermarket for its toner cartridges and has used it to unreasonably restrain competition.

Static Control also alleged that Lexmark’s non-Return Program cartridge labels mislead consumers. Lexmark had rebutted that the labels were color-coded differently and included different part numbers. Still, the jury agreed, for the most part, with Static Control’s claims.

The jury also agreed with Static Control’s claims that Lexmark improperly placed patent licenses on some toner cartridges it sold to IBM.

Those parts of the verdict, though, are merely an advisory opinion to Van Tatenhove. Van Tatenhove asked the attorneys after the verdict was announced to file certain documents with the court on those advisory opinion issues within about a month. He will issue his decision sometime after that.

Neither company made any immediate comment about appeals in the case, though London, of Static Control, said he suspects “there will be plenty of appeals.”

What does this all mean for us at Stinkyink towers?. Basically Static Control manufacture all of the components that go into refilled toner cartridges and are probably one of the biggest if not the biggest manufacturers of components in the World. If Lexmark had won the ruling then the availability of refilled/recycled cartridges would have been severly reduced, which in turn reduces consumer choice and availability. We wholeheatedly support Static in their endeavours to fight the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM’s) in this, because if one of them wins the others will all weigh in