Digital BW, The Print

john kelly wrote:
> Asking the European Union to lower the bar to
> accommodate  inferior "competitors" and to punish
> Epson/Canon/HP for excellence and innovation is the
> old-time bureaucratic thinking that contributed to the
> collapse of the Soviet Union.  
>
> Why the concern about Chinese-manufactured plastic
> products? Ink's more important. 
And that, I think, is the point. Ink *is* more important.

It's pretty clear that Epson intends to use their patents on ink 
delivery technology (that is, ink carts and chip systems) to lock in 
people using their machines to force them to buy their inks from Epson. 
This is fairly clearly illegal under U. S. Anti-Trust law. But it will 
take many years and lots of resources to prove that case -- and who has 
the deep pockets required to make the case?

While it can be argued that Epson has some level of innovation going on 
with color inks, it can also be argued that their B&W efforts are 
inferior to third party B&W inksets from MIS, Cone, and other third 
party suppliers.

The fear is that rather than compete with MIS and Cone, Epson will use 
their patents on carts to exert undue market power to shut MIS, Cone, 
and the others out of Epson's machines and thus protect Epson from 
competition in inksets.

While you might think that MIS and Cone are "inferior 'competitors'" 
many of us here find their products superior. Not a few people who make 
their livings using the competitive inks feel quite threated by this 
protectionist action by Epson and the USITC. Without the empty carts, 
they can't use the inks. Without the inks, they can't satisfy their 
customers. And *that* is the kind of bureaucratic thinking that 
contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
--
Bruce Watson