Digital BW, The Print

I think you are right vis a vis the cost of parts. Another model might  
be non-profit hardware supported by the open-source community but  
manufactured and sold along the corporate structure. This takes out a  
lot of R and D costs, keeps stuff crowdsourced / tested / out-there,  
but could leverage the huge manufacturing ladders that exist. Ubuntu- 
style.

A real study of available parts should be done though. There are a lot  
of stepping motors out there that are 1/10th the price there were in  
2001. Circuit boards are almost DYI (not to mention virtual hardware).

Maybe I'm just totally over-optimistic about this. Seems like it  
should be done though . . .

Regarding protective patents, you're probably right about that, huh.  
Just like Exxon buying the patents to clear window insulation film in  
the 1970s only to sit on them for 20 years without doing a thing. It's  
funny that we on this forum and other print/printer forums come up  
with the ideas that large companies use for patents. We need to change  
that. Find some form of legal idea structure so things discussed here  
stay open-source and available to anyone.

A bare-bones print engine might be cost effective if we didn't have  
ubber sensor tech like auto nozzle electrified ink sensors, and auto  
paper align sensors, and auto load sensors, and on and on and on. If  
we had a mechanic way to align the paper and stop during a paper-jam,  
etc, it would be a start. Imagine that. Manual printers of the highest  
quality for people who would normally tape over the paper-out sensors  
and jam pen in front-door switch anyway. Who needs protected ink cart  
empty circuits and the various electrical supplies that go with them?  
Who  needs a freaking key-code protected printhead lock?

Ahh well.

Walker


On Apr 15, 2009, at 12:46 PM, pr_roark wrote:

>
>
> Walker Blackwell <forums@...> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > In regards to an entrepreneur snapping up the ideas and
> > patenting them, that is where open-source licenses come in.
> > It means, anybody who uses the tech must publish their
> > modifications and also can't create patents over the tech
> > as published...
>
> I'm not sure this relates, but I was warned by someone who purports  
> to be a serious observer that the net effect of my and similar  
> comments on this forum was to cause the large companies to quickly  
> file patents on the ideas and use those patents to stop competition.  
> I don't know enough about patents to know if this is true. It seems  
> like just the opposite of what most of us are interested in -- an  
> open discussion of ideas. I suspect the person making the claims to  
> me was doing so as part of a pitch to get me to join his firm and  
> stop publishing ideas. No thanks.
>
> ...
> > In regards to manufacturing, I think creating printers out
> > of existing parts from multiple manufacturers is the way to go.
>
> A firm tried to get me involved in such a plan, and I concluded the  
> costs could not be held down to the point where the size of the  
> market would support the venture. Even with wide format printers,  
> there are economies of scale that a small niche player will have  
> trouble competing with. Among other things, the costs of the parts  
> would be much more than the internal costs to the OEM. But, my  
> conclusions were not based on a whole lot of research, so I would  
> not put too much weight on them. And, of course, if Epson succeeds  
> in stopping us from using their printers with third party inks, such  
> a venture might then look like a more viable option.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
> 

Walker Blackwell
802.735.0621
www.walkerblackwell.com
aim: greendirtblues





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]