They already are.  You can buy many brands of paper and it will fit in
your paper tray and print on your printer.  I use ilford and epson paper
in my Canon and use Hammermill in an HP as well as Canon.

Michael and everyone,

I believe that we probably have laws in place to take care of this, laws
in the arena known as "restraint of trade." It's common for dominant
corporations to try to push the envelope, to see what they can get away
with. Politicians who beat the drum against regulation fan these fires;
they should be tarred and feathered and run out of town for the corrupt
scoundrels that they are, at least in those countries where people like
this have run the show.

And Epson's behavior has been especially egregious due to the fact that
you, the consumer, are paying extra for that chip on the cartridge: so
you're paying to be screwed.

But let's not overlook that true competition can level the playing field
somewhat. I'm thinking, of course, of Kodak, and the monkey wrench that
they've attempted to throw into the marketplace. Their model, as many
here know, is to sell the printers for a higher price, and sell the ink
for much less.

We're in real trouble when outrageous profits become commonplace,
normal, and expected by the consumer. For example, I just paid $5 for a
pair of replacement headphone pads at Radio Shack. I calculate the
in-company markup on this purchase at 10,000 percent! And I suspect that
this kind of profit is normal for Radio Shack on small items. What's the
real markup on ink?

When a commercial ink reloader refills a cartridge, the handling cost is
vastly higher than the original manufacturing cost. There's the intake
and inspection of the "core." Then it must be cleaned thoroughly inside
and out. Finally, it's filled and tested again. Cartridges that fail
during either intake or final test are discarded. Lacking the economy of
scale of the OEM, all unit costs are higher. Yet, the reloader sells the
refilled color cartridge for 1/3 of what I'd pay for the OEM item at Costco.

Corporations will act the bully to keep competition away, to protect
their turf and their lucre. When Ben and Jerry ran their ice cream
business, they had to sue conspiring competitors who were muscling them
off supermarket shelves. Will the major printer players collude to keep
Kodak out of the stores? And why are so few manufacturers in this inkjet
business, anyway? Why don't we see Oki, Panasonic, and Konica inkjet
machines? Why isn't Samsung in the US marketplace? What gives?

When there's true competition in a field, and the regulation and legal
muscle to enforce competition, capitalism can work just fine. I think we
need this kind of vigorous encouragement for everyones' benefit (except
for HP, Canon, Lexmark, and Epson).

Richard

Kill file him and make your experience here more pleasant.  If it
weren't for people responding to him I would never know he exists.

Not at all.

I tell the truth.

Some of the businessmen who extoll the virtues of the crap ink are the
ones that are hiding.  Some are liars.  And then there are a few who are
misinformed and some who do not have high standards.

There are a few who will admit this.

They print a great deal so their risk of a clogged head it less.

They are willing to accept lower quality for their photos.

They print a lot of business documents that are short lived and extra
quality is not that important to them.

They are willing to accept the trade offs so they spend less money on
ink.  The do admit they are not saving money for they spend less and get
less.

I have not problem with these people.  It works for them and they are
honest about it.

However the squawkers in this group (many groups have idiots) do not
want to admit the truth.  Many are in or friends with the fly by niters
who sell the crap ink and others just have big egos.  If you read a lot
of posts you can tell who the holier than thou are.