Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Refill Canon i9900 ink tanks

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 5:47:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi
Has anyone had any experience refilling the Canon i9900 printer ink tanks?
If so how did you fill about the results and what refill kit did you use?

Thanks In Advance

Jim
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 1:21:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

the ink tanks are only $11-12.00 in my area so I havent felt the need to
use refills yet

--


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com


"Jim Allen" <jayohallen@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:_Cpzd.709557$mD.498332@attbi_s02...
> Hi
> Has anyone had any experience refilling the Canon i9900 printer ink tanks?
> If so how did you fill about the results and what refill kit did you use?
>
> Thanks In Advance
>
> Jim
>
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:10:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would advise not refilling them. The print head is expensive, and you
risk damage, not covered under warranty, buy doing so. Unless you find an
ink supplier willing to take the responsibility of head damage, and I'm sure
you won't.

You can find Canon brand ink cartridges at a great savings, if you shop
around. Yesterday, CompUSA had a 25% off sale, bringing them down to
$8.99/ea., with one-cent shipping.

Bill Crocker


"Jim Allen" <jayohallen@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:_Cpzd.709557$mD.498332@attbi_s02...
> Hi
> Has anyone had any experience refilling the Canon i9900 printer ink tanks?
> If so how did you fill about the results and what refill kit did you use?
>
> Thanks In Advance
>
> Jim
>
Related resources
December 26, 2004 8:13:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What only $11.00 to 12.00 that's way too much, I know that is the price of
them , but why are the other ones that look the same, packaged the same can
cost as low as $2.00 or lower each. There is no reason they should be that
price. Its seems like the video game market, sell the game cheap, and make
the profit on the games.



"rwesurfn" <rwesurfn@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10stp94lt7pv9a0@corp.supernews.com...
> the ink tanks are only $11-12.00 in my area so I havent felt the need to
> use refills yet
>
> --
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
> Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
> http://mail.giantcompany.com
>
>
> "Jim Allen" <jayohallen@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:_Cpzd.709557$mD.498332@attbi_s02...
> > Hi
> > Has anyone had any experience refilling the Canon i9900 printer ink
tanks?
> > If so how did you fill about the results and what refill kit did you
use?
> >
> > Thanks In Advance
> >
> > Jim
> >
>
>
December 26, 2004 9:49:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ajCzd.811361$8_6.598020@attbi_s04>, SB@comcast.net says...
>
> What only $11.00 to 12.00 that's way too much, I know that is the price of
> them , but why are the other ones that look the same, packaged the same can
> cost as low as $2.00 or lower each. There is no reason they should be that
> price. Its seems like the video game market, sell the game cheap, and make
> the profit on the games.
>

The printers are priced low and the ink is priced high enough to make up the
profit they DONT make on the printer.

I use Canon as well as other brands of printers and I refill sometimes and
other times I use OEM ink. Ive not had a problem with Canon voiding any
warantees.

In the continental US it is illegal to void a warantee simply because of the
use of third party consumables. The manufacurer would need to prove beyond
ANY doubt that the third party product caused the failure.(reasonable doubt
only applies in criminal cases, in warantee cases it MUST be proved without
ANY doubt, a near impossibility) This is all part of Anti-trust law.

Of the six current model Canon printers I use I have had 2 printhead
failures. Canon replaced both without question, and didn't even ask for the
old printhead to be returned.

I recommend using Canon inks unless you REALLY know and trust your third
party ink supply people.




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 9:49:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> writes:
> In the continental US it is illegal to void a warantee simply because of the
> use of third party consumables. The manufacurer would need to prove beyond
> ANY doubt that the third party product caused the failure.(reasonable doubt
> only applies in criminal cases, in warantee cases it MUST be proved without
> ANY doubt, a near impossibility) This is all part of Anti-trust law.

The standard for civil cases is lower than that for criminal cases,
not higher. Normally it's "clear and convincing evidence" or "a
preponderance of evidence". Where on earth did you get "beyond
any doubt"??
December 26, 2004 10:38:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7xk6r4y5o6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin says...
> Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> writes:
> > In the continental US it is illegal to void a warantee simply because of the
> > use of third party consumables. The manufacurer would need to prove beyond
> > ANY doubt that the third party product caused the failure.(reasonable doubt
> > only applies in criminal cases, in warantee cases it MUST be proved without
> > ANY doubt, a near impossibility) This is all part of Anti-trust law.
>
> The standard for civil cases is lower than that for criminal cases,
> not higher. Normally it's "clear and convincing evidence" or "a
> preponderance of evidence". Where on earth did you get "beyond
> any doubt"??
>
The beyond Any Doubt, came from a judge, citing the fact that printers in
question in several cases before him regarding Epson, had written warantee,
still in effect. unlike a case where a consumer simply had a complaint
involving "early failure" there was no doubt that there was not only an
implied guarantee but a WRITTEN guarantee, in which case the
guarantee,warranty could ONLY BE VOIDED if there were undoubted, proven
negligence on the part of the user. (unlike a simple case of "it shouldn't
have quit" it was guaranteed not to quit)

In other words, the proof needs to be a higher standard than a normal civil
case, when it involves a company simply shrugging off a written warantee.
The manufacturer can SAY the use of third party products voids the warantee,
but that wording has been considered null and void for YEARS in the US.

Further, voiding a guarantee/warantee due to the use of third party products
would set a precident allowing Auto makers to demand the use of their oil,
their spark plugs, their tires ect, ect.

When push comes to shove, you will get a new printhead from Epson, or Canon
if you INSIST, if the printer in question is still under warantee. However,
if you just say OK when they tell you no, you lose.

Telling you you MUST use Epson ink in an Epson printer is the same as telling
you you MUST burn a certain brand of gas in your car.. it just ain't legal in
the US. Anti-Trust law STILL has meaning.

After the warantee period, you are on your own.







--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 3:01:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c391814bb82cb0998988d@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> In the continental US it is illegal to void a warantee simply because of
> the
> use of third party consumables. The manufacurer would need to prove
> beyond
> ANY doubt that the third party product caused the failure.(reasonable
> doubt
> only applies in criminal cases, in warantee cases it MUST be proved
> without
> ANY doubt, a near impossibility) This is all part of Anti-trust law.

Do you have a citation for the above?
December 27, 2004 3:01:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1hIzd.14892$EL5.4266@trndny09>, redbird007@verizon.net says...
> Do you have a citation for the above?
>
Nope, cant be bothered to look it up, because Im NOT recommending anyone to
refill the ink tanks on the printer they use.

Im simply stating what I know to be fact, having gone down that road with
Epson, and having won.

Simple fact of law in the US... The manufacturer of a product CANNOT simply
void a written warantee, whether or not they say they can.

Check the info available at alotofthings.com, Atlanticinkjet.com.
inksupply.com and others.

They have no axe to grind, they (Atlantic & inksupply) have been selling high
quality ink for years and years, and have all they can do to keep up with
orders from long time users. Inksupply.com (MIS Assosiates) have been on the
forefront of dye ink and pigment ink development for a LONG time, and had
developed pigmented ink for Epson printers slightly BEFORE Epson did, and
have also developed a GREAT line of inks for monochrome printing with Epson
printers (there IS a demand for this)

These companies do NOT sell cheapo "one type fits all" inks and they do NOT
cater to people that are looking for them. They sell reverse engineered
equivalent inks and higher priced "special purpose" inks for people who want
BETTER than OEM can provide for some jobs.

They will tell you their inks wont void your warantee, and they WILL give
citations (at least they used to, I havent looked for a while)

I have no problem with the prices of OEM inks for either Epson or Canon
(since Epson went to seperate ink tanks for each color) and I use them for a
good percentage of my prints. There are times, and situations where
refilling is the only way to get the job done, and that is when I refill.

The simple blanket statement that refilling an ink tank "voids the warantee"
is just pure BUNK.

'taint so




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
December 27, 2004 3:01:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c392820f2b0c7fa98988f@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet says...
> In article <1hIzd.14892$EL5.4266@trndny09>, redbird007@verizon.net says...
> > Do you have a citation for the above?
> >
> Nope, cant be bothered to look it up, because Im NOT recommending anyone to
> refill the ink tanks on the printer they use.
>
> Im simply stating what I know to be fact, having gone down that road with
> Epson, and having won.
>
> Simple fact of law in the US... The manufacturer of a product CANNOT simply
> void a written warantee, whether or not they say they can.
>
> Check the info available at alotofthings.com, Atlanticinkjet.com.
> inksupply.com and others.
>
> They have no axe to grind, they (Atlantic & inksupply) have been selling high
> quality ink for years and years, and have all they can do to keep up with
> orders from long time users. Inksupply.com (MIS Assosiates) have been on the
> forefront of dye ink and pigment ink development for a LONG time, and had
> developed pigmented ink for Epson printers slightly BEFORE Epson did, and
> have also developed a GREAT line of inks for monochrome printing with Epson
> printers (there IS a demand for this)
>
> These companies do NOT sell cheapo "one type fits all" inks and they do NOT
> cater to people that are looking for them. They sell reverse engineered
> equivalent inks and higher priced "special purpose" inks for people who want
> BETTER than OEM can provide for some jobs.
>
> They will tell you their inks wont void your warantee, and they WILL give
> citations (at least they used to, I havent looked for a while)
>
> I have no problem with the prices of OEM inks for either Epson or Canon
> (since Epson went to seperate ink tanks for each color) and I use them for a
> good percentage of my prints. There are times, and situations where
> refilling is the only way to get the job done, and that is when I refill.
>
> The simple blanket statement that refilling an ink tank "voids the warantee"
> is just pure BUNK.
>
> 'taint so
>
>
>
>
>
an ADENDUM to the above.

MIS Assosiates now sells a line of pigmented inks for Epson desktop printers
designed for DYE BASED ink.. That little trick can and will, void your
warantee, as you are "abusing" the prinhead in an un-justified fashion..


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 4:15:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3923952e6646d698988e@news.comcast.giganews.com...

> The beyond Any Doubt, came from a judge, citing the fact that printers in
> question in several cases before him regarding Epson, had written
> warantee,
> still in effect. unlike a case where a consumer simply had a complaint
> involving "early failure" there was no doubt that there was not only an
> implied guarantee but a WRITTEN guarantee, in which case the
> guarantee,warranty could ONLY BE VOIDED if there were undoubted, proven
> negligence on the part of the user. (unlike a simple case of "it shouldn't
> have quit" it was guaranteed not to quit)

Please cite the case.

Also, you are misapplying the standard for the burden of proof. In a civil
case, the plaintiff (in this case, the consumer versus the manufacturer)
need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)
that the manufacturer has shirked its responsibility to honor a warranty.

> The manufacturer can SAY the use of third party products voids the
> warantee,
> but that wording has been considered null and void for YEARS in the US.

Please give us citations.
December 27, 2004 4:15:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dnJzd.12909$152.6702@trndny01>, redbird007@verizon.net says...
>
> "Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c3923952e6646d698988e@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>
> > The beyond Any Doubt, came from a judge, citing the fact that printers in
> > question in several cases before him regarding Epson, had written
> > warantee,
> > still in effect. unlike a case where a consumer simply had a complaint
> > involving "early failure" there was no doubt that there was not only an
> > implied guarantee but a WRITTEN guarantee, in which case the
> > guarantee,warranty could ONLY BE VOIDED if there were undoubted, proven
> > negligence on the part of the user. (unlike a simple case of "it shouldn't
> > have quit" it was guaranteed not to quit)
>
> Please cite the case.
>
> Also, you are misapplying the standard for the burden of proof. In a civil
> case, the plaintiff (in this case, the consumer versus the manufacturer)
> need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)
> that the manufacturer has shirked its responsibility to honor a warranty.
>
> > The manufacturer can SAY the use of third party products voids the
> > warantee,
> > but that wording has been considered null and void for YEARS in the US.
>
> Please give us citations.
>
>
>
>
Lynch vs Epson
Ct Sm Claims court
1998
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 4:17:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c392820f2b0c7fa98988f@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> In article <1hIzd.14892$EL5.4266@trndny09>, redbird007@verizon.net says...
>> Do you have a citation for the above?
>>
> Nope, cant be bothered to look it up

Well, then, you appear to be full of it.

> Im simply stating what I know to be fact, having gone down that road with
> Epson, and having won.

You can't cite your own case and point us to documentation?
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 5:05:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:D nJzd.12909$152.6702@trndny01...
>
> "Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c3923952e6646d698988e@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>
>> The beyond Any Doubt, came from a judge, citing the fact that printers in
>> question in several cases before him regarding Epson, had written
>> warantee,
>> still in effect. unlike a case where a consumer simply had a complaint
>> involving "early failure" there was no doubt that there was not only an
>> implied guarantee but a WRITTEN guarantee, in which case the
>> guarantee,warranty could ONLY BE VOIDED if there were undoubted, proven
>> negligence on the part of the user. (unlike a simple case of "it
>> shouldn't
>> have quit" it was guaranteed not to quit)
>
> Please cite the case.
>
> Also, you are misapplying the standard for the burden of proof. In a civil
> case, the plaintiff (in this case, the consumer versus the manufacturer)
> need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)
> that the manufacturer has shirked its responsibility to honor a warranty.
>
>> The manufacturer can SAY the use of third party products voids the
>> warantee,
>> but that wording has been considered null and void for YEARS in the US.
>
> Please give us citations.
>

http://www.alotofthings.com/inkjetinformation/VoidedWar...
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:52:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:47:22 GMT, "Jim Allen"
<jayohallen@insightbb.com> wrote:

>Hi
>Has anyone had any experience refilling the Canon i9900 printer ink tanks?
>If so how did you fill about the results and what refill kit did you use?
>
>Thanks In Advance
>
>Jim
>

I don't mean to be sharp, but why did you buy a $4-500 printer to save
a few pennies on ink? The i9900 is one of the top photo printers
available!

Philip
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:57:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Amen

Philip Procter wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:47:22 GMT, "Jim Allen"
><jayohallen@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi
>>Has anyone had any experience refilling the Canon i9900 printer ink tanks?
>>If so how did you fill about the results and what refill kit did you use?
>>
>>Thanks In Advance
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>
>
>I don't mean to be sharp, but why did you buy a $4-500 printer to save
>a few pennies on ink? The i9900 is one of the top photo printers
>available!
>
>Philip
>
>
>
!