Digital BW, The Print

James Irelan wrote:
> 
> 
> This thing about carts and Epson... I can think of examples of rights
> on both sides of the question. Yes, Epson has the right to protect
> its R&D investment. On the other hand, there are notable examples of
> hardware products which are not proprietarily linked to consumables.
> Cars, for instance. Car manufacturers are not in the gas business.

If gasoline came in proprietary cartridges, the story would be
different :-).

> You do not have to put GM gas in your Chevy, or wouldn't, if it
> existed.

If GM had proprietary gasoline cartridges, then that would
present an issue.  It wouldn't matter where the gasoline
came from, but if GM patented their cartridges... see the
difference?  It's not the consumable that's patented, it's
the mechanism used to deliver the consumable.

> Cameras. Kokak could have insisted that only Kodak film be
> used in its cameras.

Again, let's not confuse the consumable with the mechanism
used to deliver the consumable.  Suppose Kodak created a
new format, let's call it Disc Film... oh wait, this already
happened :-).

> Record players, CD players... you're not
> limited to CDs made by the player's company.

but CDs *are* made under license from (at least) Philips:

http://www.ip.philips.com/services/?module=IpsLicenseProgram&command=View&id=16&part=2

> What about paper? If
> Epson can squawk about ink, what about paper? Isn't that the same
> type of thing?

Sure.  If Epson printers only accepted proprietary paper
cartridges, it would be.  Again, the difference is between
the consumable material itself and the mechanism used to
deliver it.

> And what about somebody like Cone, who is doing
> something substantially different from what Epson does? Yes, recent
> Epson printers address the b&w issue, but they do it differently from
> what Cone does.

I don't believe Epson can stop Cone from selling non-infringing
inks - Epson only has a claim with respect to the cartridges used
to deliver the ink.

[...]

> And finally, what about licensing? Issue licenses.

What *about* licensing?  What does Epson want in exchange for
licensing the use of  their cartridge technology?  If they had
a monopoly, it's possible they could be forced to license their
cartridge technology - but they don't have a monopoly.

[...]

> I'll write a letter, but even if it gets to Bush I can just see that
> dumb arrogant sonofabitch being all proud of his not knowing anything
> about the issues of some damn inkjet printers- let alone fine art and
> its practitioners- and siding with Epson- it's a big company, after all.

You might want to make sure you're seeing all sides of
the relevant issues before throwing too many stones.

Dana