Digital BW, The Print

According to MIS, its cartridge supplier is not named in the
announcement by Epson.

http://inksupply.info/?_a=announcements&_m=details&_i=67

Chris Hargens

Epson doesn't know how stupid they truely are. If they clamp down on
3rd party cart design what will happen? I'll tell you what, really
efficient  CFS systems all over the world, that's what, and it won't
be Epson inks that we'll put in them at 100th the cost of Ultrachome.
I'm already thinking about that for the large format printers anyway.
You know, one of those funnel designs that has PERMANENTLY chipped
carts. They may just push me over the edge to using 3rd party for
everything.

john



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Hargens"
<chargens@...> wrote:

>
> According to MIS, its cartridge supplier is not named in the
> announcement by Epson.
> 
> http://inksupply.info/?_a=announcements&_m=details&_i=67
> 
> Chris Hargens
>

So is everyone saying that when a company invests time, creativity, and
money to invent a unique (or at least particular) design, that they should
let others use their creation and not get paid? Is that how you feel about
your artworks? 

Wendel

Pardon me, but Epson did not 'invent' the 'O' ring, or foam pads.
   
  Tom Baker

Wendel White <wendel@...> wrote:
  So is everyone saying that when a company invests time, creativity, and
money to invent a unique (or at least particular) design, that they should
let others use their creation and not get paid? Is that how you feel about
your artworks? 

Wendel




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




  SPONSORED LINKS 
        Digital wedding photography   Learn digital photography   Digital photography college     Digital photography   Digital photography web site   Digital photography course 
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
> You know, one of those funnel designs that has PERMANENTLY chipped
> carts. They may just push me over the edge to using 3rd party for
> everything.
> 
> john
> 

The dark side is waiting for you....

Maybe invent was a poorly chosen word. Nevertheless, a unique combination of
materials is generally considered to be protected, though I would be the
first to admit that my knowledge is rather limited in this area. I just want
to be considerate of what might be an effort not unlike my own when I make a
photograph. I did not invent any aspect of the materials that I use (in fact
in many cases the subject of work is not in any way unique [i.e. a portrait,
a building, a landscape, that all may have been photographed before]) yet I
consider (and so does the US copyright office) that my particular
combination is unique and therefore protected. My question was, is that very
different from the work of a manufacturing designer? Maybe I am not seeing
this clearly. 

Wendel

> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Lawsuit -- MIS
> 
> Pardon me, but Epson did not 'invent' the 'O' ring, or foam pads.
>    
>   Tom Baker

Hi Wendel.
In your case it's not quite the same. Anyone can go and stand in your
footsteps,use the same film,camera,tripod, time of day etc etc and
duplicate your results freely without transgressing anything. They
just cannot take your specific physical image and copy it. If people
are doing that to Epsons cartridges and selling them they are at risk.

The problems arise because patents are worded in such a
way(deliberately of course) as to attempt to include any and all
variations or future changes no matter how distant from the origonal
concept so as to maintain a stranglehold on a market.

Because the Epson's of the world have much deeper pockets than any
small entreprenure they can often muscle out the competition just by
creating costly obstacles to doing business. It is usually only
temporarily effective though.

Regards
Duane




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, Wendel White
<wendel@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe invent was a poorly chosen word. Nevertheless, a unique
combination of
> materials is generally considered to be protected, though I would be the
> first to admit that my knowledge is rather limited in this area. I
just want
> to be considerate of what might be an effort not unlike my own when
I make a
> photograph. I did not invent any aspect of the materials that I use
(in fact
> in many cases the subject of work is not in any way unique [i.e. a
portrait,
> a building, a landscape, that all may have been photographed
before]) yet I
> consider (and so does the US copyright office) that my particular
> combination is unique and therefore protected. My question was, is
that very
> different from the work of a manufacturing designer? Maybe I am not
seeing

> this clearly. 
> 
> Wendel
> 
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Lawsuit -- MIS
> > 
> > Pardon me, but Epson did not 'invent' the 'O' ring, or foam pads.
> >    
> >   Tom Baker
>

Well said, Wendell,

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wendel White" <wendel@...>


So is everyone saying that when a company invests time, creativity, and
money to invent a unique (or at least particular) design, that they should
let others use their creation and not get paid? Is that how you feel about
your artworks?

Well said, Duane

> The problems arise because patents are worded in such a
> way(deliberately of course) as to attempt to include any and all
> variations or future changes no matter how distant from the origonal
> concept so as to maintain a stranglehold on a market.
> 
> Because the Epson's of the world have much deeper pockets than any
> small entreprenure they can often muscle out the competition just by
> creating costly obstacles to doing business. It is usually only
> temporarily effective though.
> 
> Regards
> Duane

Chris Hargens

So, is the opposite true? If a small entrepreneur develops a unique product,
we should defend the large companies that want to infringe on the patent?

Wendel

> 
> The problems arise because patents are worded in such a
> way(deliberately of course) as to attempt to include any and all
> variations or future changes no matter how distant from the origonal
> concept so as to maintain a stranglehold on a market.
> 
> Because the Epson's of the world have much deeper pockets than any
> small entreprenure they can often muscle out the competition just by
> creating costly obstacles to doing business. It is usually only
> temporarily effective though.

> 
> So is everyone saying that when a company invests time, creativity, and
> money to invent a unique (or at least particular) design, that they should
> let others use their creation and not get paid? 

No.

The questions are much more complex.  The action is at the interface of, for
example, patents and antitrust.  It's a huge field.  See for example,
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycomments/index.htm

Scholars will be debating these issues forever. 

One doesn't solve these things quickly or summarily -- and that includes the
ITC in the context of an Epson complaint.  (And certainly not here and not
me.)

Stopping the ITC from unwisely stepping into the middle of this with only
one side of the story is the modest action that I think is doable -- and I'm
trying to do.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Wendel White wrote:

> I just want
>to be considerate of what might be an effort not unlike my own when I make a
>photograph. 
>
Copyright and patent are VERY different.

Copyright is simple recognition of artistic ownership, of creation by a 
particular individual

Beacause most technology is additive and synthetic, not truly original, 
though related, the protections are different.

I might add that the current Administration has been accused of allowing 
FAAAAAARRRRR too many obvious implelmentations ot existing technology to 
be patented. From:


  Battles of the Patents, Like David v. Goliath
  <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/business/businessspecial2/21patent.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/business/businessspecial2/21patent.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>

"This has led to patents of dubious quality, critics say, and an 
increase in patent infringement claims, often against small companies 
that cannot afford to defend them."


-- 
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2004, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }





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

Wendel White wrote:

>So, is the opposite true? If a small entrepreneur develops a unique product,
>we should defend the large companies that want to infringe on the patent?
>
>  
>
Wendel,

Read the NY Times piece.. The former case is much moree common these days.

Let me use a particular example from art and technology. Rob Silvers 
makes photomosaics.  He has patented the technology HE uses BUT also 
uses trademark to prevent anyone else from using different algortihms to 
achieve similar visual effects. He does so by trademarking the "look and 
feeL' of the final imagery.  He thereby uses his money and leverages his 
pre-eminent market position into a legalized monopoly.

Let's assume EPSON were to integrate their logo into the chip design, 
and only chips that incorporate an electronic version of the logo would 
be allowed to work in a printer.  Thren, EPSON could arguably say that 
any 3rd party provider of such chips was violating BOTH Trademark and 
Patent..  Surely, that would be a ridiculous outcome.  Using the EPSON 
logo as an authorization key of sorts is usrely not technologically 
innovative, but might be legally innovative.  Patent is meant to protect 
technologically innovative property, not ALL intellectual property the 
level of innovation/differenc theoretically necessary to sustin a patent 
is significantly greater than that necessary  to establish copyright.   
Don't let the sycophantic luddites who mindlessly accept EPSON's 
representations here pull the wool over your eyes.

What EPSON is really up to is using its money and market position to 
intimidate current manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers, while 
discouraging future entrants who might consider selling EPSON compatible 
products.  It's an old fashioned grab at monopoly of a market segment 
that the Hunt Brothers would understand all too well..
 
Even the entries of HP and Canon won't make a difference if EPSON 
succeeds. Why? Because they all use the same razor/blade business 
model.  If EPSON succeeds here, 3rd party alternatives will dry up.  If 
that's the case with inks, just give the OEMs time to figure out how to 
do it with media as well...



-- 
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2004, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }





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

I think, Wendell, that what you are confusing is a marketing ploy vs intellectual property. If Epson really wanted to profit from their creativity, rather than trying to capture the commons of the ink supply market, they would have charged what the printers are worth, not what they could use as a come-on. Also, maybe their ink prices might have been less unreasonable, so that they didn't piss-off their bulk users and throw the game to 3rd parties for the ink market.

The fact that Epson down-priced it's creative product, the printers, in no way obligates the rest of us to succumb to their transparent attempt to get us to pay for what they didn't invent - over and over and over again. The fact that they didn't charge for their true creativity implies, to me, that they really didn't value it that highly in the first place.

This has nothing to do with my artworks.

Frank

Message: 16        
   Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:44:04 -0500

   From: Wendel White <wendel@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Epson Lawsuit -- MIS

So is everyone saying that when a company invests time, creativity, and
money to invent a unique (or at least particular) design, that they should
let others use their creation and not get paid? Is that how you feel about
your artworks? 

Wendel

Hi Wendel.
I wasn't defending anyone. You will note I said if one were copying
Epsons design they were at risk--- as well they should be. The same
language I referred to appears in every patent I've ever looked at.(
That is quite a few and I lift ideas from them all the time for
personal use(not sale or profit).) The small inventor gets the same
protections as anyone else. Money however does talk as we all know.
It isn't unusual for the meaning of a word to be turned upside down
when slick legal help gets involved. Justice can be
sometimes......well, lets say distant ;-{

Regards
Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Wendel White
<wendel@...> wrote:
>
> So, is the opposite true? If a small entrepreneur develops a unique
product,
> we should defend the large companies that want to infringe on the
patent?

> 
> Wendel
> 
> > 
> > The problems arise because patents are worded in such a
> > way(deliberately of course) as to attempt to include any and all
> > variations or future changes no matter how distant from the origonal
> > concept so as to maintain a stranglehold on a market.
> > 
> > Because the Epson's of the world have much deeper pockets than any
> > small entreprenure they can often muscle out the competition just by
> > creating costly obstacles to doing business. It is usually only
> > temporarily effective though.
>

Seems to me, patently obvious what Epson is doing here.  They have produced an instrument that is highly sophisticated with capabilities of producing near photo quality pictures of the great longevity.  They cannot, in their current chosen market segment, charge the actual profitable cost for producing an instrument of this sophistication, and expect to have any worthwhile market share, save those in high end commercial printing establishments, which would be small and potentially non-profitable.  So, they have chosen to try and expand their market by giving the product away, then make their profit in the consumables, i.e. the ink, for which they charge highly exorbitant prices once the consumer is locked into a product.  The marketplace has shown that there are manufacturers of ink and or cartridges that can be much more than competitive with Epson as far as the cost of producing inks and cartridges is concerned.

Epson has simply selected a bad marketing strategy and in an attempt to recover lost profits is simply playing the legal card in an attempt to force some competitors out of the market and to force the market, many of which are highly cost-conscious and procured the product because of its low initial price, to procure consumables at highly inflated prices directly for Epson, thereby profiting Epson's bottom-line.

In the end, I believe Epson has shot itself in the foot by pursuing this market strategy and by pursuing legal remedies against its competitors as well as trying to trap consumers in this way in the first place.  I for one, can tell you that I will not be purchasing any Epson printer products in the future even though the current Epson products that I use are of good quality and produce excellent results.  I most certainly will seek printer products, in other markets in future.

Larry Heath

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Wendel White 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Lawsuit -- MIS


  So, is the opposite true? If a small entrepreneur develops a unique product,
  we should defend the large companies that want to infringe on the patent?

  Wendel

  > 
  > The problems arise because patents are worded in such a
  > way(deliberately of course) as to attempt to include any and all
  > variations or future changes no matter how distant from the origonal
  > concept so as to maintain a stranglehold on a market.
  > 
  > Because the Epson's of the world have much deeper pockets than any
  > small entreprenure they can often muscle out the competition just by
  > creating costly obstacles to doing business. It is usually only
  > temporarily effective though.




  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




  SPONSORED LINKS Digital wedding photography  Learn digital photography  Digital photography college  
        Digital photography  Digital photography web site  Digital photography course  


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    a..  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
      
    b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Larry,
 
I am pretty sure Epson's model is the standard for the inkjet printer
industry.
 
From 1993 into 2000 I worked for a precision manufacturing company here in
Silicon Valley. One of our major customers was HP and particularly for the
many metal parts that went into their inkjet printers. Our marketing people
told me in the late 90's that the HP printer division's financial goals were
set at -1% to +2% profit. The expectation was that the serious profit would
come from the sale of ink cartridges.
 
About this time HP was selling a printer for $50 to $69 which used a set of
the black and color cartridges that sold for $45.
 
The fact that all the major manufacturers have competitively priced models
also suggest they are operating in a similar fashion. In any case switching
brands seems unlikely escape the business model.
 
Martin Wesley
 
(snip) 

In the end, I believe Epson has shot itself in the foot by pursuing this
market strategy and by pursuing legal remedies against its competitors as
well as trying to trap consumers in this way in the first place.  I for one,
can tell you that I will not be purchasing any Epson printer products in the
future even though the current Epson products that I use are of good quality
and produce excellent results.  I most certainly will seek printer products,
in other markets in future.

Larry Heath
  (snip) 


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

Hi

And on and on.  Truth be known most of us will buy the printer that 
is most cost effective for level of quality we need and pursue inks 
that are easy to use and provide good gamut, deep blacks and 
longevity regardless of brand.  I am thankful that Epson has provided 
in a very few years of development products that exceed that which I 
hoped for only a few years ago.  Yet, if the new 17" Canon 12 ink 
printer does well on matt and glossy media with excellent resolution, 
wide gamut and great longevity I will consider it for my next 
printer.  Yes, Canon probably has the same razor blade marketing 
strategy.  So be it.  Great printer and great ink.  In the long run 
no 3rd party ink developer will further progress in this area like 
Epson, Canon or HP will out of the need to be competitive and grab 
market share.

My 2 cents worth

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Heath" 
<lgheath@...> wrote:
>
> Seems to me, patently obvious what Epson is doing here.  They have 
produced an instrument that is highly sophisticated with capabilities 
of producing near photo quality pictures of the great longevity.  
They cannot, in their current chosen market segment, charge the 
actual profitable cost for producing an instrument of this 
sophistication, and expect to have any worthwhile market share, save 
those in high end commercial printing establishments, which would be 
small and potentially non-profitable.  So, they have chosen to try 
and expand their market by giving the product away, then make their 
profit in the consumables, i.e. the ink, for which they charge highly 
exorbitant prices once the consumer is locked into a product.  The 
marketplace has shown that there are manufacturers of ink and or 
cartridges that can be much more than competitive with Epson as far 
as the cost of producing inks and cartridges is concerned.
> 
> Epson has simply selected a bad marketing strategy and in an 
attempt to recover lost profits is simply playing the legal card in 
an attempt to force some competitors out of the market and to force 
the market, many of which are highly cost-conscious and procured the 
product because of its low initial price, to procure consumables at 
highly inflated prices directly for Epson, thereby profiting Epson's 
bottom-line.
> 
> In the end, I believe Epson has shot itself in the foot by pursuing 
this market strategy and by pursuing legal remedies against its 
competitors as well as trying to trap consumers in this way in the 
first place.  I for one, can tell you that I will not be purchasing 
any Epson printer products in the future even though the current 
Epson products that I use are of good quality and produce excellent 
results.  I most certainly will seek printer products, in other 
markets in future.
> 
> Larry Heath
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Wendel White 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:19 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Lawsuit -- MIS
> 
> 
>   So, is the opposite true? If a small entrepreneur develops a 
unique product,
>   we should defend the large companies that want to infringe on the 
patent?
> 
>   Wendel
> 
>   > 
>   > The problems arise because patents are worded in such a
>   > way(deliberately of course) as to attempt to include any and all
>   > variations or future changes no matter how distant from the 
origonal
>   > concept so as to maintain a stranglehold on a market.
>   > 
>   > Because the Epson's of the world have much deeper pockets than 
any
>   > small entreprenure they can often muscle out the competition 
just by

>   > creating costly obstacles to doing business. It is usually only
>   > temporarily effective though.
> 
> 
> 
>

Martin,

> About this time HP was selling a printer for $50 to $69 which used a
set of
> the black and color cartridges that sold for $45.
>  
> The fact that all the major manufacturers have competitively priced
models
> also suggest they are operating in a similar fashion. In any case
switching
> brands seems unlikely escape the business model.

I recognize that a printer that goes for under 100 USD, and with the
print quality of a C84 is "underpriced". 

However the printers that most are using here, 2100, 4000 series and
the bigger models, come at a very high price. 

I dont accept this very strategy - charge a premium price fpr carts -
for higher grade printers. Don't you think a difference should be made
between cheap and higher end printers? I mean, how much should a 2100
or 2400 cost in order to make them enough money for not having to -
sorry Epson - steal it through ink that is priced like some military
stuff? Hey, 17ml (2100 carts) means 1 Euro = 1ml, 1 litre is 1000 Euro. 

regards, Bernie

bwinkjet wrote:

> In the long run 
>no 3rd party ink developer will further progress in this area like 
>Epson, Canon or HP will out of the need to be competitive and grab 
>market share.
>
>  
>
That's like saying that major auto manufacturers should be able to sell 
proprietary gasoline or oil for their vehicles, because only they, not 
gasoline or petrochemical companies will do the work to create 
automobiles of such quality. It's a chimeric paper tiger.

It's the same argument people offered about telephone products when the 
whole AT&T breakup lawsuit process began. "Only AT&T  can produce those 
nice high quality phones we get, they underwrite the cost through the 
telephone charges." Frankly, it's a pathetic argument for maintaining a 
monopoly. We have more telephone hardware options than ever, a plethora 
of providers for that hardware, etc. that would not have existed absent 
the breakup. Monopolies by their inherent nature stifle innovation and 
development, they only superficially seem to advance it.

If you are simply choosing to side with monopolists because you are 
comfortable with the current product-set and the status quo, fine, say 
so.  Please don't try putting lipstick on the pig by asserting as 
complete fallacy about technological advancement. No matter how much 
makeup you trowel on, it'll still be a pig underneath it all.
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2006, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }





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

Hi Keith

I don't believe gasoline development had much to do with the 
development of the gasoline engine so the argument is not quite 
appicable.  Inks are evolving with the requirements for 
printers/papers/inks going forward.  If a 3rd party ink supplier 
develops a better ink that is another and important issue, but if the 
3rd parties are merely using current technology and copying the 
delivery systems then an infringment of some sort has occured.  I 
agree it is a thorny issue, but as I said in my initial post Epson, 
and now Canon and HP have spent many research and development dollars 
providing an amazing technology to us and as such have the right to 
recover their costs, no matter what the business model they choose.  
In my opinion that is.

Paul Hathaway

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. 
Image Service" <editor@...> wrote:
>
> bwinkjet wrote:
> 
> > In the long run 
> >no 3rd party ink developer will further progress in this area like 
> >Epson, Canon or HP will out of the need to be competitive and grab 
> >market share.
> >
> >  
> >
> That's like saying that major auto manufacturers should be able to 
sell 
> proprietary gasoline or oil for their vehicles, because only they, 
not 
> gasoline or petrochemical companies will do the work to create 
> automobiles of such quality. It's a chimeric paper tiger.
> 
> It's the same argument people offered about telephone products when 
the 
> whole AT&T breakup lawsuit process began. "Only AT&T  can produce 
those 
> nice high quality phones we get, they underwrite the cost through 
the 
> telephone charges." Frankly, it's a pathetic argument for 
maintaining a 
> monopoly. We have more telephone hardware options than ever, a 
plethora 
> of providers for that hardware, etc. that would not have existed 
absent 
> the breakup. Monopolies by their inherent nature stifle innovation 
and 
> development, they only superficially seem to advance it.
> 
> If you are simply choosing to side with monopolists because you are 
> comfortable with the current product-set and the status quo, fine, 
say 
> so.  Please don't try putting lipstick on the pig by asserting as 
> complete fallacy about technological advancement. No matter how 
much 
> makeup you trowel on, it'll still be a pig underneath it all.
> Keith
> 
>  
> Keith Krebs
> 
> "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON 
printer 
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
> Publications), at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
> and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
together 
> guys"
> 
>  
> 
> ****************************************************************
> CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
> This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © 
Copyright, 
> Keith Krebs, 2001-2006, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for 
the 
> sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
> privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of 
the 
> author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
> distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. 
If you 
> are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, 
please 
> contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the 
original 
> message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed 
under 
> applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed 
in 
> violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
> liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
> violation penalties.
> 
> POV IMage Service Banner
> ****************************************************************
> { The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-
image.com/ }

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

bwinkjet wrote:

>I don't believe gasoline development had much to do with the 
>development of the gasoline engine so the argument is not quite 
>appicable. 
>
Actually, it's not the development of gasoline I was pointing to, but 
the development of the cars - i.e. the printers. Car manufacturers 
cannot prevent you from using any gas, oil, transmission fluid, tires, 
or replacement parts that meet the minimum specifications.  In fact, if 
the inks were the innovative feature, then EPSON would be able to charge 
whatever they wanted for those inks and they could easily defend 
infringements against the ink patents. The fact that they do not do so, 
but guard the chips and cartridge patents, puts the lie to your line of 
reasoning.

As for the inks. EPSON does NOT generally develop the actual pigments or 
dyes.  They buy those developed by major international 
chemical/petrochemical firms (all the companies buy from the same small 
selection of producers). As an example, Canon and EPSON use the very 
same dyestuff.  The difference between the two products is the carrier 
and the printer/cartridge.  So, please get your facts correct before 
opining.


>but as I said in my initial post Epson, 
>and now Canon and HP have spent many research and development dollars 
>providing an amazing technology to us and as such have the right to 
>recover their costs, no matter what the business model they choose.  
>In my opinion that is.
>
>  
>
Even if the business model they choose relies on a market-position monopoly?

IF (not, I say "IF") you think it's ok to recover one's costs by using 
industry power and market-position to maintain an effective monopoly in 
a market segment you're quite simply wrong on both legal and economic 
grounds.

On a legal level, vertical tying of that type violated both Sherman and 
Clayton - as well as implicating Magnuson-Moss.  On an economic level, 
it has been repeatedly shown that monopoly creates and inefficient and 
innovation-retarded marketplace.

The fact that someone (EPSON in this case) invested money does not 
axiomatically entitle them to a return on that investment. No business 
is a sure thing. ..And government has no place helping ensure them of a 
return on investment. They chose a business model when inkjets were rare 
and have continued to use that same model even after the printers have 
become ubiquitous. They, and many of us, predicted that if inkjets 
became ubiquitous the business model would be found illegal, if not 
simply have to be altered to avoid anti-trust issues. They've chosen not 
to alter it, but to try and force law and  economics to accord to a 
model they knew could cause such problems.
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2006, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }





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

Hi.I'm not Keith but have to comment on this.

Neither Epson nor any other commercial entity (save perhaps public
utilities by law) have a "right" to recover anything. They exist only
by the sufferance of the market they serve. When and if the market
itself decides to do without their products or services they are
immediately in deep doodoo. Whether it's by way of lousy
service,monopolistic practices that p'off customers,bad products,a
change in fashion or just some unfathomable twitch in the ether the
results are the same. Some other firm will always come along to fill
the vacumn. Enraging a portion of ones customers is a very unwise
practice. IMHO

Regards
Duane



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwinkjet"
<bwinkjet@...> wrote:
>
  I 

> agree it is a thorny issue, but as I said in my initial post Epson, 
> and now Canon and HP have spent many research and development dollars 
> providing an amazing technology to us and as such have the right to 
> recover their costs, no matter what the business model they choose.  
> In my opinion that is.
> 
> Paul Hathaway
>

Keith,

> In fact, if
> the inks were the innovative feature, then EPSON would be able to charge
> whatever they wanted for those inks and they could easily defend
> infringements against the ink patents. The fact that they do not do so,
> but guard the chips and cartridge patents, puts the lie to your line of
> reasoning.


Does it? As I said somewhere in another post, HP has just settled a case 
where a firm - Inkcycle -has had to pay up for selling refilled carts that 
infringed HP patents on ink. They had to alter the composition of the ink. 
They apparently didn't know HP had patents on ink!

http://news.com.com/HP,+InkCycle+settle+inkjet+refilling+suit/2100-1041_3-5737561.html

Probably no problem for B&W inks unless they are copying patented 
carrier/solvent mixes or resin coatings.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>

Guys.  Can we take this stuff offline or at least constrain it to
constructive action, be it protesting the action in some formal way (Paul's
recommendations) or hedging your risk by acquiring carts today.  All this
banter back and forth by unqualified and uninvolved people is all just
worthless traffic. 

> From: Bob Frost <bob@...>

> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Lawsuit -- MIS
> 
> Keith,
> 
>> In fact, if
>> the inks were the innovative feature, then EPSON would be able to charge
>> whatever they wanted for those inks and they could easily defend
>> infringements against the ink patents. The fact that they do not do so,
>> but guard the chips and cartridge patents, puts the lie to your line of
>> reasoning.
> 
> 
> Does it? As I said somewhere in another post, HP has just settled a case
> where a firm - Inkcycle -has had to pay up for selling refilled carts that
> infringed HP patents on ink. They had to alter the composition of the ink.
> They apparently didn't know HP had patents on ink!
> 
> http://news.com.com/HP,+InkCycle+settle+inkjet+refilling+suit/2100-1041_3-5737
> 561.html
> 
> Probably no problem for B&W inks unless they are copying patented
> carrier/solvent mixes or resin coatings.
> 
> Bob Frost.

Steve,

Fine, I was getting bored by it anyway.

As for your uncalled-for remark about 'unqualified and uninvolved people', I 
consider myself involved since I have had about ten different Epson printers 
and currently have four, one of which I use for B&W printing. As to my 
qualifications, well my main training was in discovering facts  - 35 years 
of it in a major University - with a formal PhD to show that I can think 
logically and discern the scientific facts from the fiction.

If you are going to Court against Epson, it is best, surely, to have the 
facts in your case, rather than fiction - of which there seems to be an 
awful lot about.

May the best man win. - ooops, or woman.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>


Guys.  Can we take this stuff offline or at least constrain it to
constructive action, be it protesting the action in some formal way (Paul's
recommendations) or hedging your risk by acquiring carts today.  All this
banter back and forth by unqualified and uninvolved people is all just
worthless traffic.

I didn't mean to offend.  I simply meant that the debate was amongst people
who are not lawyers and ill-versed in the legal issues, accusations and
defences involved, and amongst people who are not involved in the present
actions and hence unable to affect the result.  I'm all for lobbying in an
effective manner, ie becoming involved, if that's what people want to do,
but arguing amongst us girls is not going to achieve anything other than use
up bandwidth.  :-)

> From: Bob Frost <bob@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:22:21 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Lawsuit -- MIS
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Fine, I was getting bored by it anyway.
> 
> As for your uncalled-for remark about 'unqualified and uninvolved people', I
> consider myself involved since I have had about ten different Epson printers
> and currently have four, one of which I use for B&W printing. As to my
> qualifications, well my main training was in discovering facts  - 35 years
> of it in a major University - with a formal PhD to show that I can think
> logically and discern the scientific facts from the fiction.
> 
> If you are going to Court against Epson, it is best, surely, to have the
> facts in your case, rather than fiction - of which there seems to be an
> awful lot about.
> 
> May the best man win. - ooops, or woman.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
> 
> 
> Guys.  Can we take this stuff offline or at least constrain it to
> constructive action, be it protesting the action in some formal way (Paul's
> recommendations) or hedging your risk by acquiring carts today.  All this
> banter back and forth by unqualified and uninvolved people is all just
> worthless traffic.

It is true that HP and Canon would also have the same desire to
control the golden fluids that will run in their machines as well as
Epson does. It's hard for me to imagine that the new competitors in
fine art pigment printing will come out with a machine and say, ok
guys have at it and put other inks in these devices, we don't care,
we're all for ya. But, it does give us an alternative should Epson
become bent on totally destrying the third party markets, especially
the superior black and white ones.

The one thing that I never understood about Epson is how many
different printer models they have to service and how they can
function that way. They must be supplying about 10 different inksets
throughtout the world, and maintaing perfect consistency with them
all. Now that has to be costing them a forture just to keep up with it
all and keep them on the shelves. They just make too many printers,
but it isn't an easy business to keep current in. It seems like
everytime they design a new inkset they have to completely redesign
the printer.

john




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
<dlruckus@...> wrote:

>
> Hi.I'm not Keith but have to comment on this.
> 
> Neither Epson nor any other commercial entity (save perhaps public
> utilities by law) have a "right" to recover anything. They exist only
> by the sufferance of the market they serve. When and if the market
> itself decides to do without their products or services they are
> immediately in deep doodoo. Whether it's by way of lousy
> service,monopolistic practices that p'off customers,bad products,a
> change in fashion or just some unfathomable twitch in the ether the
> results are the same. Some other firm will always come along to fill
> the vacumn. Enraging a portion of ones customers is a very unwise
> practice. IMHO
> 
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwinkjet"
> <bwinkjet@> wrote:
> >
>   I 
> > agree it is a thorny issue, but as I said in my initial post Epson, 
> > and now Canon and HP have spent many research and development dollars 
> > providing an amazing technology to us and as such have the right to 
> > recover their costs, no matter what the business model they choose.  
> > In my opinion that is.
> > 
> > Paul Hathaway
> >
>