| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to rejecting third-party ink cartridges due to a "ticking timebomb" has happened before at HP. The article mentions a similar incident that occurred over a decade ago with Lexmark printers, where a similar tactic was used to prevent the use of refilled cartridges [47715].
(b) The software failure incident related to rejecting third-party ink cartridges has also happened at Lexmark in the past. The article mentions a previous incident involving Lexmark printers where a similar tactic was used to prevent the use of refilled cartridges, indicating that this type of issue has occurred at multiple organizations [47715]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to the design phase. The failure was caused by a "ticking timebomb" left by the manufacturer in an update released in March 2016. This update, which had a delayed-action effect, caused the printers to suddenly reject ink cartridges produced or refilled by third parties [47715].
(b) The software failure incident is also related to the operation phase. Users began experiencing error messages such as "cartridge problem" and "one or more cartridges are missing or damaged" when trying to use third-party ink cartridges in their printers. This issue arose during the operation of the printers, affecting their functionality and causing inconvenience to users [47715]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) The software failure incident related to the rejection of third-party ink cartridges by HP printers is primarily within the system. The failure was caused by a "ticking timebomb" left by the manufacturer in a software update released in March 2016 [47715]. The update had a delayed-action effect, causing the printers to suddenly reject the third-party ink cartridges six months later, without any recent software update being applied to the printers. This indicates that the issue originated from within the system itself, specifically from the firmware update pushed by HP.
(b) Additionally, the incident also involves factors originating from outside the system. The rejection of third-party ink cartridges by HP printers was influenced by the design of the cartridges themselves, which contain software and hardware components to report their status to the printer and prevent unauthorized use. This external factor, related to the design and functionality of the cartridges, contributed to the failure incident [47715]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the HP printers rejecting third-party ink cartridges was due to a non-human action. The failure was attributed to a "ticking timebomb" left by the manufacturer in an update released in March 2016 [47715]. This update had a delayed-action effect, causing the printers to suddenly reject the third-party ink cartridges without any recent software update being applied to the printers themselves. The features in the printer cartridges, including software and hardware components, were designed to report their status to the printer and prevent mistakes, making it harder for third parties to refill or replace printer ink [47715].
(b) The failure was not directly attributed to human actions in terms of introducing contributing factors that led to the software failure incident. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident in the HP printers rejecting third-party ink cartridges was primarily due to contributing factors originating in hardware. The printers contained software and hardware components within the cartridges designed to report their status to the printer, improve print quality, and prevent mistakes. The rejection of third-party cartridges was a result of the printer's inability to recognize or authenticate these cartridges due to the hardware components and security chip embedded in the official HP cartridges [47715].
(b) The software failure incident also had contributing factors originating in software. The rejection of third-party ink cartridges was triggered by a software update released by HP in March 2016. This update had a delayed-action effect, causing the printers to start rejecting the third-party refills in September. The software update implemented functionality that prevented the use of certain cartridges, leading to error messages like "cartridge problem" and "older generation cartridge" [47715]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is non-malicious. The failure was due to a "ticking timebomb" left by the manufacturer in an update released in March 2016, which caused Hewlett-Packard printers to suddenly reject ink cartridges produced or refilled by third parties [47715]. The article explains that the printers began to reject the refills with error messages, indicating that the failure was not intentional but rather a consequence of the manufacturer's actions.
(b) The failure was not malicious but rather a result of the manufacturer's decision to implement software features that made it harder for third parties to refill or replace printer ink. The article mentions that printer cartridges contain software and hardware components designed to report their status to the printer, improve print quality, and prevent mistakes, which inadvertently led to the rejection of third-party cartridges [47715]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident:
The software failure incident involving Hewlett-Packard printers rejecting third-party ink cartridges appears to be related to poor decisions made by the manufacturer. The incident was attributed to a "ticking timebomb" left by HP in an update released in March 2016, which caused the printers to suddenly reject the third-party cartridges. This deliberate action by HP led to error messages indicating cartridge problems, ultimately affecting users who had been using third-party refills at a lower cost [Article 47715]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence can be seen in the article where it mentions that HP printers started rejecting ink cartridges produced or refilled by third parties due to a "ticking timebomb" left by the manufacturer in an update released in March 2016. This indicates that the update introduced by HP had unintended consequences that led to the rejection of third-party ink cartridges, showcasing a failure due to contributing factors introduced by the development organization [47715].
(b) The accidental aspect of the software failure incident is evident in the article where it describes how the printers began to reject third-party ink cartridges on 13 September, even though the printers themselves had not received a recent software update. This suggests that the impact of the update was not immediate but rather had a delayed-action effect, indicating an accidental introduction of the failure [47715]. |
| Duration |
permanent, temporary |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article seems to be more of a permanent nature. The article mentions that HP printers started rejecting third-party ink cartridges due to a "ticking timebomb" left by the manufacturer in an update released in March 2016. This update had a delayed-action effect, causing the printers to reject the refills even though they had not received a recent software update. The fact that the printers were designed to reject certain cartridges based on specific software checks indicates a permanent change in the functionality of the printers [47715].
(b) The software failure incident can also be considered temporary in a sense that it was triggered by specific circumstances, such as the update released in March 2016. The rejection of third-party ink cartridges was not a default behavior of the printers but rather a result of the update that introduced the "ticking timebomb." This suggests that under different circumstances, such as not receiving that particular update, the printers may not have exhibited the rejection behavior. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident described in the article can be related to a crash behavior. The printers suddenly started rejecting ink cartridges produced or refilled by third parties, leading to error messages such as "cartridge problem" and "one or more cartridges are missing or damaged" [47715].
(b) omission: The incident can also be associated with an omission behavior. The printers omitted to perform their intended functions of accepting refills made by third parties, which they had been doing before the sudden rejection started on 13 September [47715].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident can be considered as a timing issue. The printers began to reject refills made by third parties on 13 September, which was a delayed-action effect of an update released six months prior in March 2016 [47715].
(d) value: The software failure incident can be linked to a value behavior. The printers were performing their intended functions incorrectly by rejecting third-party ink cartridges, even though some cartridges with an original HP security chip would still work [47715].
(e) byzantine: The incident does not directly align with a byzantine behavior, as there is no mention of inconsistent responses or interactions in the article [47715].
(f) other: The other behavior exhibited in this software failure incident is a deliberate lockdown by the manufacturer through a software update that caused the printers to reject third-party ink cartridges. This behavior can be seen as a strategic move to limit the use of cheaper alternatives and promote the use of official HP ink cartridges [47715]. |