Digital BW, The Print

James Irelan wrote:
> 
> 
> A question for the legally knowledgeable:
> 
> Someone mentioned that Epson has to sue to keep their patents alive,
> otherwise a competitor like HP could come along and capitalize on
> their technology and prevail based on Epson's failure to get active
> and raise the issue.

I believe I made that point.  First of all, I'm not an attorney,
and I'm especially not an intellectual property attorney, so I
may be completely wrong, etc.  Talk to a real attorney for real
advice :-)

> Couldn't that same argument pertain to protect
> artists who have been using the cart technology for a number of years
> now?

Failure to defend intellectual property rights (patent, trademark,
copyright) can result in losing those rights.  This assumes that
some kind of intellectual property protection has been established;
something has to exist in order to be defended.

I think what you're asking is "Can't the artists that have been
putting non-Epson inks in cartridges for Epson printers claim that
Epson hasn't been defending Epson's patents?".

Sure, anyone can claim anything in court, of course.  However,
intellectual property law is very detailed.  If Epson fails to
defend a patent, that applies only to a specific patent.

 > When did Cone's Piezo system first come out? More than ten
> years ago? Granted, those carts weren't chipped. But artists have
> established themselves and are making livelihoods using this
> technology having nothing to do with cart type or anything else other
> than ink different from or superior to anything Epson offered at the
> time, or even now. Did Epson spring into action in a timely fashion
> and say wait a minute; you can't use those carts/materials?

I don't know.  It's possible that Epson didn't defend some patents
in a timely way, in which case it's possible that some patents could
be successfully challenged in court.  For example, Epson might not see
the value in defending patents for non-chipped carts, but vigorously
defend patents on chipped carts, in which case it is conceivable that
someone could successfully challenge Epson's patents on non-chipped
carts - but not chipped carts.

If the business really didn't have anything to do with cart-type,
then this is irrelevant; Epson would have no claim, but the business
*does* have to do with cart-type when carts are being sold.  If the
carts are protected by a patent, then the patent-holder has a claim.

 > Or did
> respectable and valuable businesses and artists become established
> for years, now to find their livelihoods and art threatened?

The short answer is "yes".

> Couldn't some case be made based on the length of time these
> practitioners have had, and based on the inherent value of what they do?

As I mention above, I'm sure some case could be made, but
there are two problems I see.  The first problem is that it's
not just a case, but potentially many cases to challenge each
specific patent; it's possible that someone could challenge the
patent(s) on non-chipped cartridges and win.  How much would that
help today?

The second problem is that someone has to make the case.  Someone
has to go to court and pay the attorneys, and that cost may be
much larger than the potential return even if successful.

I'm not arguing for or against anyone here.  I'm just expressing
intellectual property law as I superficially understand it.  Basically,
once someone holds a patent, it provides a very high level of
protection.


Dana