Cryptography To Frustrate Printer-Ink Piracy

Zack Melich writes with news of a new front about to open in the war printer manufacturers wage with cartridge counterfeiters, refillers, and hardware hackers. A San Francisco company, Cryptography Research Inc., is designing a crypto chip to marry cartridges to printers. There's no word so far that any printer manufacturer has committed to using it. Quoting: "The company's chips use cryptography designed to make it harder for printers to use off-brand and counterfeit cartridges. CRI plans to create a secure chip that will allow only certain ink cartridges to communicate with certain printers. CRI also said that the chip will be designed that so large portions of it will have no decipherable structure, a feature that would thwart someone attempting to reverse-engineer the chip by examining it under a microscope to determine how it works. 'You can see 95 percent of the [chip's] grid and you still don't know how it works,' said Kit Rodgers, CRI's vice president of business development. Its chip generates a separate, random code for each ink cartridge, thus requiring a would-be hacker to break every successive cartridge's code to make use of the cartridge."

Piracy?

[Rix]

That's absurd enough when applied to simple copyright infringement, but there's absolutely nothing illegal about after market ink. In fact, these sort of shenanigans should be illegal themselves. Let the printer manufacturers compete fairly.

hacked in 3 seconds:

[Anonymous Coward]

Decided to buy a different printer.

Defective by Design

[saibot834]

It is Defective by Design [defectivebydesign.org]. Don't buy this stuff

Re:Piracy?

[mrbluze]

That's absurd enough when applied to simple copyright infringement, but there's absolutely nothing illegal about after market ink. In fact, these sort of shenanigans should be illegal themselves. Let the printer manufacturers compete fairly.

I doubt it will really work. The technique itself will be patented and will come at a cost to printer manufacturers to implement, whereas it will make the printers particularly unattractive to anyone on a budget.

Everybody, even my grandma, knows that the real cost is in the consumables. People can easily make the calculation, eg: "let me see, I spend $30 more for printer Y but I get to refill, which costs me $15 less each time. Hmmm, what a tricky decision - not!"

misquoted

[BiggerIsBetter]

The company's chips use cryptography designed to make it harder for customers to use off-brand and counterfeit cartridges.

Fixed that for you.

Restricting or Denying Consumers Choice?

[jombeewoof]

Sounds like business as usual here in the Corporate States of Amerika.
That's like saying I can only use Dodge Brand gas in my car, and my wife could only use Toyota.

Re:misquoted

[haakondahl]

Cryptography To Frustrate Printer-Ink Competition

Fixed that for ya.

Re:Piracy?

[owlstead]

"I doubt it will really work. The technique itself will be patented and will come at a cost to printer manufacturers to implement, whereas it will make the printers particularly unattractive to anyone on a budget."

That's wishfull thinking. You can easily make chips for a very small fraction of the price of these cartridges. So much so that any "piracy" that is being stamped out will mean more profit for the original manufacturer.

Chips in mass production have two mayor cost components: design and die-size. Now I don't know how much IP overhead there will be, but rest assured that the variable costs (related to die-size) will be extremely low. Especially since some of these cardridges tend to already contain electronics.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Ink Jet Profit Margins

[Anonymous Coward]

It may easily be illegal:

* It increases the amount of waste. A whole printer is price-dumped into the market, and when the ink goes out, people buy a whole new printer.

* Waste again: Preventing cartridge refills, which is easier on the environment.

* Anti-trust: Preventing fair competition in the marketplace of ink cartridge manufacturers.

* Making devices Defective By Design, thus artificially restricting customer choice and creating artificial shortage. The devices are sold normally without any extra labels or warnings. Consumer-laws may have a word or two on that.

Clearly, a company is not justified in any means in order to make a buck. Far from it. Economics theory even includes that companies should invest in local infrastructure and provide services to the community. They are part of the community, not separate from it. The more they sell their soul to Mammon, the worse they make our community. We should then revoke the privileges as a person, which the companies now enjoy.

OTOH: Reverse-engineering might well be illegal in the USA, because of the silly DMCA in said country. Fix your laws!

RIAA and Epson in the same tree

[eebra82]

Here we go again. "Official" printer ink is more expensive than heroin, but instead of competitive pricing, they go hand in hand with RIAA's marketing folks (read: more competition equals pricier products).

If they had ink cartridges with aggressive pricing in the first place, people would buy the factory-made ink simply because it would sound like a safe choice. At least I would.

Re:Ink Jet Profit Margins

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation:
Companies have the right to make business decisions to maximize
their revenue. However, you as a customer don't have the right to
inform others about these decisions and even less right to use that
information to decide how to protect your interests. It is your moral duty
not to propagate this information because doing so might damage
the business model of printers makers.

Re:This has been tried Before

[jombeewoof]

Most certainly, but it seems to be almost cyclical.

1. Corruption becomes out of control
2. Profit!!
3. Locals get pissed, get corruption back to acceptable levels.
4. Locals become complacent, stop keeping their good eye on officials
5. Corruption becomes out of control
6. Profit!!

I'm no genius but, I can see a slight pattern developing here.

Stop using printers then

[bl8n8r]

Why, for fucks sakes, does anyone need to print anything these days? Is emailing pictures not enough? Can you not just purchase a scanner? TEACH YOURSELF how to take advantage of technology and at least make it harder for this kind of crap to keep happening.

Nice business plan ...

[haraldm]

... for the "pirates". Since this is going to make "official" ink cartridges more expensive, this will firstly raise the "pirates"' revenues, making it more rewarding to produce counterfeit cartridges to begin with. Duh. Each time in history, when something was forbidden or made illegal, the criminals made more money, like during prohibition in the 30s. As soon as the prohibition was cancelled, the alcohol mafia gangs had to look for different businesses. When will people learn.

Re:Piracy?

[Splab]

The lose money on the printer and earn it all on cartridges. How big do you think the chances are for them to make an open standard and thus lower their income?

Re:Anti trust?

[Yvanhoe]

Anyway, reverse engineering for compatibility purpose is protected by law in several European countries but you know, when we try to make a law to force compatibility between devices, this is dubbed a "anti-iPod, anti-Apple" law...

Re:Piracy?

[omfgnosis]

Er, by that logic, nothing is against the law, and the only law is that of the people with guns. Fascism, fuck yeah!

Re:hacked in 3 seconds:

[speaker of the truth]

These companies can sell printers at a loss and in bulk, thus making it impossible for their smaller competitors to compete, and make up the difference in printer cartridges. Your average Joe won't look beyond the initial printer sale.

Could we please drop the phrase *right now*

[Qbertino]

Could we please drop the phrase 'printer-ink piracy' and the concept of whatever the f*ck it's supposed to mean right now! Thank you.

Re:Piracy?

[mrbluze]

Chips in mass production have two mayor cost components: design and die-size. Now I don't know how much IP overhead there will be, but rest assured that the variable costs (related to die-size) will be extremely low. Especially since some of these cardridges tend to already contain electronics.

Still, I can't see how companies will uniformly embrace this (unless forced to - do you see that happening anytime soon?). This is not likely to impact on current technologies, I reckon, but actually it might on new methods of printing which may be protected by patent for a time. Say Kodak had a new way of making ink not bleed once printed .. say an inkjet-based method that was superior to laser. They might claim to protect consumers by forcing them to use kodak cartriges and thereby justify this DRM.

Re:Piracy?

[sdnoob]

>> Please RTFA.....
>> Who said it was illegal?

>> They're just trying to minimize profit loss, and I don't blame them.

well, if printer manufacturers would just sell their hardware (and consumables) at a price that reflects the actual cost to produce (each item type) there would be no lost profits.... this whole 'make the money on ink' is bullshit.

and besides, isn't this company just wasting their time? "circumventing" restrictions in printer consumables was already ruled to not be a violation of the "it's Digital, Me Copy it Anyway" act? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int'l_v._Stat ic_Control_Components [wikipedia.org]

Re:Off-topic my ass... he hit the damned nail!

[ScrewMaster]

Digital Rights Management does not intrinsically require remote authentication: DRM is simply a technological measure intended to limit the customer's use of a product. Copy protection is just one form of DRM, and it's been around for a long time. Interestingly, HP printer drivers have already been caught phoning home (for what purpose I don't know) so it's not hard to imagine printer vendors eventually requiring remote "activation" of cartridges. Maybe they already do, for all I know. My own printer predates all this crap, which is why I'm not inclined to replace it just yet.

Personally, I dislike software which does not require Internet access to perform its function (such as a printer driver) automatically assuming that it's ok to connect to a remote server for undisclosed activity. If I catch a program doing that, odds are it gets uninstalled and something else takes its place.

imagine if...

[e**(i pi)-1]

Imagine the gasoline type would match only your car brand. Cars would be cheap to buy but you were forced to use the manufactures gas. Thats how ridiculous the situation with the printer ink is.

This has already been outlawed in the US

[gelfling]

Epson and Lexmark both lost class action suits brought against them for building technical blocs in thier hardware which would lock out 3rd party ink carts. And if the printer companies think they would survive a concerted effort by Indian and Chinese vendors to replace them in the home/SOHO market they are smoking the same weed that the RIAA uses. So I say let them try. They will see that market dry up.

Recyling is Piracy?

[GodWasAnAlien]

The title of the article is very wrong. Can "Piracy" be replaced with "Re-use" or Recycling?

Re:Piracy?

[UnrealisticWhample]

But I think the wider issue is, the continuing attempts to prevent 3rd party printer cartridges, shows blatant violation of antitrust laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitru [wikipedia.org] st_law/ Its about time legal action was taken against these companies.

Yup. Controlling the aftermarket ink and toner cartridges is a blatant violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Also, the standard practice of scaring consumers into thinking that their warranties are going to be voided by even looking at the refilled cartridges is in direct violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

So, why are things so screwed up? HP, Lexmark, Canon and Epson have much larger legal departments than remanufacturers.

Re:Piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same line that we have been getting fed for ages. For example:

"Product activation saves you money." -- Vista went up in price, even with the activation.
"DRM on CDs drive down prices." -- CDs have gone up in price in the past decade, even adjusting for inflation.

Every time some new DRM technology, its always touted as saving prices... never happens.

Re:Piracy?

[omfgnosis]

I wasn't actually passing judgement about the validity of the law in question, just saying that the law doesn't only count when you get caught. If it did, that would be tyranny (which isn't far off, and that's a whole other discussion, but I digress). As soon as the law is determined solely by what the people with guns say, there isn't even the pretense of freedom left.

Of course corporations shouldn't have freedoms that people don't have. But as the laws are, piracy by corporations *is* illegal, regardless of whether they are punished for it.

When Will They Learn...?

[Bellum Aeternus]

"Have to create a crack for every cartridge" - Yeah, just like crackers needed to to break the encryption on DVDs, HD-DVDs, and BluRay DVDs? You just figure out the master key for all, say..., HP printers and you've "fixed" the problem. Security like this is ridiculous. If they're so worried about it, why don't they raise the price of the printers and say "buy Brand X, we have the cheapest ink around!" and then not bother with all this FUD?

Re:Off-topic my ass... he hit the damned nail!

[noidentity]

Always remember to call it Digital Restrictions Management, since that's what it actually does. In most cases the restrictions aren't there to protect anyone's right, just their greed.