to me, it sounds like a made up scenario. Are there actually any such cases of printers being destroyed by third party ink? Even then, you could say the warranty is void if the printer is damaged because of the ink rather than across the board. But it sounds like just navelgazing "what ifs" to me rather than a practical concern
> Are there actually any such cases of printers being destroyed by third party i
I don't know. Which is why I consider the whole discussion only interesting in principle. I.e. should manufacturers be liable for warranty when non-approved consumables are used in all cases, or never or in some cases, for specific consumables on specific products.
Yes, I'm only interested in the legal what-ifs here. And not about printers specifically either.
And here I think that both "never" and "in some cases for specific products" could make sense. Basically a legal carve out for printers or something. Because otherwise the only thing that happens is WORSE. It would mean manufacturers make parts and consumables harder to replace OR they have to make warranty shorter than they could.
An alternative scenario is this: Manufacturers offer a regular/minimum warranty but if consumers use only original consumables/parts, then the warranty is extended. Say 1 year for a printer if you use third party ink and 5 years if you keep buying the manufacturers ink. Should that be legal?
