Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

Re: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-04 by Brian Ellis

"The ruling does not become effective until the president signs
off on it."

I don't think that's exactly right. I don't believe the president has to 
sign off on it in the sense of actually taking some affirmative action 
before it takes effect. If the president does nothing during the 60 day 
period following the date of the ruling then I think the ruling 
automatically takes effect. The president can stop it from taking effect 
during the 60 day period but unless he does so it will take effect without 
his doing anything.  I could be wrong, I don't have the statute in front of 
me, but I think that's what it says.

And I realize that by using the word "president" I'm inviting another 
barrage of off-topic hostility directed at George Bush but please note that 
neither this message nor the statute refers to George Bush by name. Both 
simply refer to "president," which could be any president past, present, or 
future.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 12:09 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.


>...Could someone post a few sentence summary of what the decision was?

Pursuant to 19 U.S. Code Section 337
(http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/int_prop/STATUTE.PDF) the U.S.
International Trade Commission (ITC) has the power to exclude products from
the U.S. -- that is, bar their importation at the borders -- that infringe
patents of U.S. companies.  Epson, which has nominal production of carts at
an Oregon facility (one of the issues that was lost here), has successfully
complained to the ITC that many third party ink cartridges violate many of
its patents.  (The validity of the patents was another issue that was lost
by the few third party cartridge companies that even responded to the
complaint.)

The ITC found that Epson's complaint was valid and ordered that the
cartridges at issue be barred from being imported into the U.S.  I'm not
sure how many, if any, third party carts for desktop Epson printers escape
this ruling.  The ruling does not become effective until the president signs
off on it.

If we cannot get cartridges to hold the inks, we cannot use third party
inks, such as those sold by MIS and Inkjetmall.

This effort by Epson is, obviously, aimed at eliminating competition for its
inks, which are very profitable for them.

Many of us on this list use third party B&W (and color) inks.  Epson's
actions threaten to eliminate our ability to do so.

Although it's a long shot, sometimes these agency decisions are not just
rubber-stamped at the White House.

Under Section 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) relating to exclusion of articles from
entry, if competition and consumers in the U.S. would be damaged by
exclusion, such an order should not be issued.  That is what I have argued
in a letter to President Bush is the case here.

The environmental issues are also something that could be considered by the
government at the policy level.  So, that is another issue to try and inject
into the mix.

Note that Epson has private remedies available to it for the patent
violations.  My argument is basically that the U.S. government should not be
subsidizing an effort by a predominantly foreign company to damage
competition in the U.S. and raise prices to U.S. consumers.

Hope this helps explain what is going on.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com




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.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-04 by Scott Jones

I have read through all the Epson court posts so far and have yet to 
find one that simply and clearly explains what the decision was. Google 
and Google News has been no better. I am trying to read between the 
lines of all the opinions. Could someone post a few sentence summary of 
what the decision was?

Thanks for helping someone who was not in the original loop.

Re: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-04 by Joe Dempsey

Scott:
There are others of us who want that information as well.
Joe

Scott Jones wrote:
> 
> 
> I have read through all the Epson court posts so far and have yet to
> find one that simply and clearly explains what the decision was. Google
> and Google News has been no better. I am trying to read between the
> lines of all the opinions. Could someone post a few sentence summary of
> what the decision was?
> 
> Thanks for helping someone who was not in the original loop.
> 
> 

-- 
Joe Dempsey Communications Co.
Suite 2B  121 West 6th Avenue
Pine Bluff AR 71601
Downtown office 870-536-5758
Home office (Best Bet) 870-534-5835
Cell 870-550-0191
http://www.joedempseycommunications.com
http://www.molehillproductions.com
http://www.joedempseyphoto.com

Re: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-04 by Carl Schofield

This is a summary provided on the Epson site:
http://itc.epson.com/index.html
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Nov 4, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Scott Jones wrote:

> I have read through all the Epson court posts so far and have yet to
> find one that simply and clearly explains what the decision was.  
> Google
> and Google News has been no better. I am trying to read between the
> lines of all the opinions. Could someone post a few sentence  
> summary of
> what the decision was?
>
> Thanks for helping someone who was not in the original loop.

RE: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-04 by Paul Roark

>...Could someone post a few sentence summary of what the decision was?

Pursuant to 19 U.S. Code Section 337
(http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/int_prop/STATUTE.PDF) the U.S.
International Trade Commission (ITC) has the power to exclude products from
the U.S. -- that is, bar their importation at the borders -- that infringe
patents of U.S. companies.  Epson, which has nominal production of carts at
an Oregon facility (one of the issues that was lost here), has successfully
complained to the ITC that many third party ink cartridges violate many of
its patents.  (The validity of the patents was another issue that was lost
by the few third party cartridge companies that even responded to the
complaint.)

The ITC found that Epson's complaint was valid and ordered that the
cartridges at issue be barred from being imported into the U.S.  I'm not
sure how many, if any, third party carts for desktop Epson printers escape
this ruling.  The ruling does not become effective until the president signs
off on it.

If we cannot get cartridges to hold the inks, we cannot use third party
inks, such as those sold by MIS and Inkjetmall.

This effort by Epson is, obviously, aimed at eliminating competition for its
inks, which are very profitable for them.  

Many of us on this list use third party B&W (and color) inks.  Epson's
actions threaten to eliminate our ability to do so.

Although it's a long shot, sometimes these agency decisions are not just
rubber-stamped at the White House.  

Under Section 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) relating to exclusion of articles from
entry, if competition and consumers in the U.S. would be damaged by
exclusion, such an order should not be issued.  That is what I have argued
in a letter to President Bush is the case here.

The environmental issues are also something that could be considered by the
government at the policy level.  So, that is another issue to try and inject
into the mix.

Note that Epson has private remedies available to it for the patent
violations.  My argument is basically that the U.S. government should not be
subsidizing an effort by a predominantly foreign company to damage
competition in the U.S. and raise prices to U.S. consumers. 

Hope this helps explain what is going on.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

RE: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-04 by Paul Roark

Here is a sample letter, basically what I sent without the personal
information:  http://paulroark.com/Sample%20letter.zip  

 

Be sure to vary the content, personalize the letter, keep it to one page, be
respectful.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  

 

>...Could someone post a few sentence summary of what the decision was?






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

RE: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-04 by Paul Roark

Brian,

 

You're probably right.  I have not studied the ITC procedures.  I think the
most analogous FTC procedure was more like a negative option.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Ellis
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 6:27 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

 

"The ruling does not become effective until the president signs
off on it."

I don't think that's exactly right. I don't believe the president has to 
sign off on it in the sense of actually taking some affirmative action 
before it takes effect. If the president does nothing during the 60 day 
period following the date of the ruling then I think the ruling 
automatically takes effect. The president can stop it from taking effect 
during the 60 day period but unless he does so it will take effect without 
his doing anything. I could be wrong, I don't have the statute in front of 
me, but I think that's what it says.

And I realize that by using the word "president" I'm inviting another 
barrage of off-topic hostility directed at George Bush but please note that 
neither this message nor the statute refers to George Bush by name. Both 
simply refer to "president," which could be any president past, present, or 
future.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@verizon. <mailto:paul.roark%40verizon.net>
net>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 12:09 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

>...Could someone post a few sentence summary of what the decision was?

Pursuant to 19 U.S. Code Section 337
(http://www.usitc. <http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/int_prop/STATUTE.PDF>
gov/trade_remedy/int_prop/STATUTE.PDF) the U.S.
International Trade Commission (ITC) has the power to exclude products from
the U.S. -- that is, bar their importation at the borders -- that infringe
patents of U.S. companies. Epson, which has nominal production of carts at
an Oregon facility (one of the issues that was lost here), has successfully
complained to the ITC that many third party ink cartridges violate many of
its patents. (The validity of the patents was another issue that was lost
by the few third party cartridge companies that even responded to the
complaint.)

The ITC found that Epson's complaint was valid and ordered that the
cartridges at issue be barred from being imported into the U.S. I'm not
sure how many, if any, third party carts for desktop Epson printers escape
this ruling. The ruling does not become effective until the president signs
off on it.

If we cannot get cartridges to hold the inks, we cannot use third party
inks, such as those sold by MIS and Inkjetmall.

This effort by Epson is, obviously, aimed at eliminating competition for its
inks, which are very profitable for them.

Many of us on this list use third party B&W (and color) inks. Epson's
actions threaten to eliminate our ability to do so.

Although it's a long shot, sometimes these agency decisions are not just
rubber-stamped at the White House.

Under Section 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) relating to exclusion of articles from
entry, if competition and consumers in the U.S. would be damaged by
exclusion, such an order should not be issued. That is what I have argued
in a letter to President Bush is the case here.

The environmental issues are also something that could be considered by the
government at the policy level. So, that is another issue to try and inject
into the mix.

Note that Epson has private remedies available to it for the patent
violations. My argument is basically that the U.S. government should not be
subsidizing an effort by a predominantly foreign company to damage
competition in the U.S. and raise prices to U.S. consumers.

Hope this helps explain what is going on.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

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

http://groups. <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>
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.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/>
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.

Yahoo! Groups Links

 



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

Re: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-04 by john dean

Excellent, and very helpful.

I think these should also be forwarded as an open letter to as many
media outlets as possible. There is nothing to loose in doing so. If
they suceed in this I'm afrad it will be open season on everything,
including most large carts and cfs units.

john





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a sample letter, basically what I sent without the personal
> information:  http://paulroark.com/Sample%20letter.zip  
> 
>  
> 
> Be sure to vary the content, personalize the letter, keep it to one
page, be
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> respectful.
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
>  
> 
> >...Could someone post a few sentence summary of what the decision was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-04 by the_des_bois

Is it just me or do I already have problems finding empty desktop
Epson carts on Ebay.com? Only CIS / CFS seem to remain.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> Excellent, and very helpful.
> 
> I think these should also be forwarded as an open letter to as many
> media outlets as possible. There is nothing to loose in doing so. If
> they suceed in this I'm afrad it will be open season on everything,
> including most large carts and cfs units.
> 
> john
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@> wrote:
> >
> > Here is a sample letter, basically what I sent without the personal
> > information:  http://paulroark.com/Sample%20letter.zip  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Be sure to vary the content, personalize the letter, keep it to one
> page, be
> > respectful.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >   _____  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > >...Could someone post a few sentence summary of what the decision
was?
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Re: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-04 by John

Paul,
    Was this just an exclusion order on the importation of carts, or did it also cover the "Manufacture of Carts in the US, because if it didn't any one who can design and Patent a "Cart or Ink delivery system" in the US that gets arround Epsons Patents and have it made there would be exempt!!!

See the Reference below from the Statute:

>
The ITC found that Epson's complaint was valid and ordered that the
cartridges at issue be barred from being imported into the U.S. I'm not
sure how many, if any, third party carts for desktop Epson printers escape
this ruling. The ruling does not become effective until the president signs
off on it.<

Regards 

John_E
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 4 November, 2007 6:09:07 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

>...Could someone post a few sentence summary of what the decision was?

Pursuant to 19 U.S. Code Section 337
(http://www.usitc. gov/trade_ remedy/int_ prop/STATUTE. PDF) the U.S.
International Trade Commission (ITC) has the power to exclude products from
the U.S. -- that is, bar their importation at the borders -- that infringe
patents of U.S. companies. Epson, which has nominal production of carts at
an Oregon facility (one of the issues that was lost here), has successfully
complained to the ITC that many third party ink cartridges violate many of
its patents. (The validity of the patents was another issue that was lost
by the few third party cartridge companies that even responded to the
complaint.)

The ITC found that Epson's complaint was valid and ordered that the
cartridges at issue be barred from being imported into the U.S. I'm not
sure how many, if any, third party carts for desktop Epson printers escape
this ruling. The ruling does not become effective until the president signs
off on it.

If we cannot get cartridges to hold the inks, we cannot use third party
inks, such as those sold by MIS and Inkjetmall.

This effort by Epson is, obviously, aimed at eliminating competition for its
inks, which are very profitable for them. 

Many of us on this list use third party B&W (and color) inks. Epson's
actions threaten to eliminate our ability to do so.

Although it's a long shot, sometimes these agency decisions are not just
rubber-stamped at the White House. 

Under Section 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) relating to exclusion of articles from
entry, if competition and consumers in the U.S. would be damaged by
exclusion, such an order should not be issued. That is what I have argued
in a letter to President Bush is the case here.

The environmental issues are also something that could be considered by the
government at the policy level. So, that is another issue to try and inject
into the mix.

Note that Epson has private remedies available to it for the patent
violations. My argument is basically that the U.S. government should not be
subsidizing an effort by a predominantly foreign company to damage
competition in the U.S. and raise prices to U.S. consumers. 

Hope this helps explain what is going on. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark. com 




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

RE: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-05 by Paul Roark

>Was this just an exclusion order on the importation of carts, 
>or did it also cover the "Manufacture of Carts in the US, 
>because if it didn't any one who can design and Patent a 
>"Cart or Ink delivery system" in the US that gets 
>arround Epsons Patents and have it made there would be exempt!!!

It's more than just an exclusion order.  There are cease and desist orders
also.  I have not seen or analyzed all of it/them, but I'm sure it's not
going to be so easy as to just make the violating carts in the U.S.

I'm not sure of the mechanics of enforcement here.  I hope to have a contact
with one of the party's attorneys next week.  Hopefully I'll have more
information after that.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-05 by Steve and Ann Taylor

Paul,

In reviewing and modifying your letter, I came across a misspelling of the  
word "severe." You have "sever" which of course is a valid word and would  
not get flagged by a spell checker. Thanks for providing a framework from  
which to begin our own letters.

Steve


On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:38:07 -0800, Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>  
wrote:

> Here is a sample letter, basically what I sent without the personal
> information:  http://paulroark.com/Sample%20letter.zip
>
>
> Be sure to vary the content, personalize the letter, keep it to one  
> page, be
> respectful.
>
>
> Paul
>
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>
>
>


-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

RE: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-05 by Paul Roark

Oops.  Fixed. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
> and Ann Taylor
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:34 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson Court decision; explanation please.
> 
> Paul,
> 
> In reviewing and modifying your letter, I came across a misspelling of the
> word "severe." You have "sever" which of course is a valid word and would
> not get flagged by a spell checker. Thanks for providing a framework from
> which to begin our own letters.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:38:07 -0800, Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> wrote:
> 
> > Here is a sample letter, basically what I sent without the personal
> > information:  http://paulroark.com/Sample%20letter.zip
> >
> >
> > Be sure to vary the content, personalize the letter, keep it to one
> > page, be
> > respectful.
> >
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

Re: Epson Court decision; explanation please.

2007-11-05 by Native Texan Photographer

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul 
Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> It's more than just an exclusion order.  There are cease and desist 
orders
> also.  I have not seen or analyzed all of it/them, but I'm sure 
it's not
> going to be so easy as to just make the violating carts in the U.S.
> 
> I'm not sure of the mechanics of enforcement here.  I hope to have 
a contact
> with one of the party's attorneys next week.  Hopefully I'll have 
more
> information after that.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Paul, you've been the most help to me on this forum, always gracious 
and polite.  Tell you what I'm going to do.  If it really gets bad 
and you have to move your operation undergroung, and sell your prints 
on the street corners and allyways, let me know.  Me and a couple of 
the boys will come over, and get your back.  We'll provide muscle for 
your operations, free of charge! Anybody messes with you, they'll be 
sleeping with the fishes!

Uncle Dannie

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.