Controversial issues in cartridge remanufacturing

HP claims that remanufactured cartridges cannot keep up to quality of new cartridges- therefore they are collecting them and recycling since 1991. A few years ago Lexmark slammed cartridge remanufacturers with its lawsuit. Being controversial, HP and Epson followed them on the grounds of patent infringement. What happens is that: OEMs put chips in toner cartridges to communicate with the printers and to prevent them from accepting refill cartridges.

It did not take too long for cartridge manufacturers to put chips that can trick the printers to accept the aftermarket cartridges. Printers, especially he inkjet ones, are awfully cheap and the strategy is selling a stream of cartridges though the product’s lifecycle as complementary product. Environmentally concerned EU passed a law banning chip three years ago, effective last September. It is really a big revenue loss for the OEMs. Some people who used refill toner cartridge in the past talk about quality problems too. On the other hand, when it comes to intellectual property rights, putting alternate chips to trick printers is really a violation, in my opinion. However, there is a huge amount of money, employment and waste management opportunity out there.

OEMs have the opportunity to enter the remanufacturing market, at least to remanufacture returning products and have a portion of the revenue they make selling a new cartridge instead of losing all refill job to third party. Protect your brand name and IP, make profits, please your customers, and deter entry of third party remanufacturers. Lexmark’s Prebate program is a good example. However, it is not that easy I see: some sources report the return rates for Lexmark range about 30%, and remaining goes to waste. I searched for more recent and accurate data on the return rates. No luck right now, but I will update you as soon as I have it.