Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson court decision- cross posted  (Read 48013 times)
TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 350


WWW
« on: November 01, 2007, 08:02:04 PM »
ReplyReply

This is of great interest to me, and others using 3rd party inks in their Epson printers. Epson is working toward a similar ruling for the large format cartridges as well. Using Jon's inks and 3rd party papers, I am currently making prints that in my opinion and that of others can not be touched by the quality of an out of the box Epson solution. I can only speak my own opinion. In fact, for my work, the solutions offered by the standard Epson inks and drivers yield unacceptable print quality FOR MY PURPOSES, you may have very different needs. There are others using MIS inks, Generations, and other setups for their own reasons this impacts as well. Beyond the printing issue, there are larger issues at play here too.
That these aggressive technology corps have impacted the marketplace such that smaller older traditional manufacturers can't compete makes this even more difficult, since most of those products are now gone.
If any of this seems relevant to you, please read Jon's post below, reproduced here with his permission.
Thanks,
Tyler




Who would have known that something like this could happen in America?

Unfortunately after reviewing nearly 500 pages of the court ruling as
well as the ITC ruling, it is clear that this affects every company in
the USA that imports either empty, filled, or CIS cartridges for
desktop printers. It does not affect large format.

EPSON set up this website to bring it to the attention of all
cartridge resellers: http://itc.epson.com/

This ruling only affects the USA and is now dependent upon the
President of the USA, George W Bush, signing it into law - which is
expected. It affects all desktop cartridges which have a chip parallel
to the front of the cartridge but not the chip itself, the port
through which ink feeds into the ink stem of the printer, and the
device which holds the cartridge into the printer, also cartridges
with foam or a bladder/valve. In short it covers all 750 models of
EPSON products but only for the desktop. And yes CIS are affected. The
end result being none of these cartridges will be allowed into the USA
after the President signs it into law.

It does give one pause to think that patent law has become more
important in the USA than anti-trust law, and this may signal the
beginning of entities rushing patents not in order to make innovation
but rather to produce monopolies. It is a totally anti-competitive
action which has occurred and is unfortunately a symptom of what is
happening in the USA that affects people across all party lines. In
short it affects every average US citizen, whether they are a
photographer using monochromatic inks to replace the darkroom
materials which are no longer manufactured, a scrap-booker trying to
save money on their hobby, or the retiree that prints coffee mugs and
mouse pads with dye-sublimation inks to augment their social security.

Can you or anyone do anything?

The International Trade Commission was charged with the below burden
but may not have been presented with any evidence as to how it
affected the USA because only a single surviving Chinese company was
represented:

-------
"If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider
the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the
Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order
and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and
welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or directly competitive with
those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers.

If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60
days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action."
-------

So, if you think that the your welfare is affected by the ITC decision
or that competitive conditions will be affected, etc, you should
quickly write the President of the United States and reference this on
both your envelope and the letterhead:

RE: International Trade Commission 337 Investigation No. 337-TA-565


Please write the President. You have only a short time to act.



start it thus:


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

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

[enter date here]

RE: International Trade Commission 337 Investigation No. 337-TA-565

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to you concerning the October 19, 2007 decision by the
International Trade Commission concerning the Section 337
Investigation in the Matter of Certain Ink Cartridges and Components
Thereof (Inv. No.337-TA-565). Their decision is now coming to you for
your approval, of which I hope you pause to reflect upon, and do not sign.

The ITC decision adversely affects me because...[ this is where you
write the because and you should speak of how it directly affects you
or your business.]

...and dont forget to sign it!

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


If you know someone high up on the media chain - make a phone call to
them. Its a very newsworthy story that is being kept very quiet right
now, probably so as not to upset what is seen as the inevitable
signing into law of this historic ruling on consumables. Anti-trust
law used to prevent this from happening. I can only imagine what other
foreign and usa corporations will also attempt to monopolize a piece
of the American economy.

OPTIONS:

1) We recommend for our desktop users to look online for a supplier of
CIS systems so they can be prepared to switch to bottles.

2) InkjetMall will be contacting its customers with a special offer to
encourage them to upgrade to large format systems which are not
affected by this ruling.

3) Save your current carts and learn how to take a syringe, draw a
vacuum and refill from a bottle. A chip resetter available on the
internet will refresh the ink memory chip. It may be necessary to
temporarily tape over the ink outlet port in order to draw a
sufficient vacuum.

Of course, our European customers will be able to continue purchasing
our desktop cartridges from our European resellers, but our European
resellers will not be allowed to sell them to USA customers according
to this ruling so this is not an option for USA customers. We can
continue to purchase and fill inks for desktop in our overseas
location for our European customers.



best regards,

Jon Cone
Logged
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2007, 08:36:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Well.
I am sympathetic to Mr. Cone's frustration with this grotesquely anti-competitive monopoly-protection legislation. But does anyone seriously think that a letter-writing campaign will affect any decision made by "Mr. 24%"? The most corrupt, pro-business, pro-monopoly, anti-competitive, anti-art president in American history?

Just sayin.
Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2007, 09:25:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi
Is this just for Epson? If so I am glad I switched to Canon 2 years ago. For our Canon i9950 I refill the cartridges with Jet Tec ink & the printer works great. It is a lot less expensive & less wasteful. For the iPF5000 we only use the Canon inks due to the quality plus the fact I don't think there are any 3rd party inks for this printer?

Thanks Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
Jack Varney
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 392


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2007, 09:56:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I am no Epson advocate nor am I so wealthy that competetivly priced products are of no interest but if Epson requested a patent and it was issued and another firm copied the patent, is this not patent infringment?

Tyler perhaps you can clarify why it is not an infringement. Then your statement-

"It is a totally anti-competitive action which has occurred and is unfortunately a symptom of what is happening in the USA that affects people across all party lines."

will become meaningful.
Logged

Jack Varney
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2007, 10:38:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll add this to the rather long list of reasons my studio (and many others) stopped using Epson products.
Logged
adiallo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2007, 11:25:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Tyler perhaps you can clarify why it is not an infringement. Then your statement-

"It is a totally anti-competitive action which has occurred and is unfortunately a symptom of what is happening in the USA that affects people across all party lines."

will become meaningful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack,
That stmt was from Jon Cone. Tyler is just copying his original post (with permission). As for the infringement issue, we're talking essentially about a chip glued to a plastic cartridge. What gets under many peoples' skin is that long-standing anti-Monopoly laws in the US prevent a company from mandating you use only their consumables/parts in their hardware. The analogy would be you can only use a Ford brand muffler when you take your car to the repair shop. Or how about Canon saying you must only use their raw conversion software for CR2 files? I remember the concern by Schewe et al about proprietary Raw formats and future incompatability. And this issue has a much more immediate impact to users who for image quality, cost, or both are using non-Epson inks, including bulk CIS kits.
The shift to digital technology has brought in general, a more open approach to innovation and compatability, compared with the traditional film photography culture. But this is a case where Epson is simply looking to make more money on ink sales.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2007, 02:12:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But this is a case where Epson is simply looking to make more money on ink sales.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150183\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually no...if you understand IP law, the holder of a patent MUST defend it or loose it...if Epson doesn't defend it's patents on it's ink delivery systems then they will be in the situation where the patents can be held to be invalid.

It's rather ironic that photographers, who benefit from copyright protection seem so willing to blow patents (the other form of intellectual property protected in the US) out of the water when it's not convenient to them...and make no mistake, this has NOTHING to do with undocumented, proprietary file formats for raw...neither Nikon nor Canon have ever claimed patents on their file formats (only the analog to digital systems in their cameras) and neither have ever gone after anybody (that I'm aware of) for reverse engineering nor decoding of those formats...

The matter is far more complicated than Jon Cone has made out...and if he's been using ink carts that violate Epson's patents, I can see why he's leading an attempt at trying to stop this ITC action. I can also see that users who like 3rd party inks might be upset, but if you read further you'll find that Epson main complaint isn't at people such as Cone (although he's been caught in the fight) but at low-end replacement ink suppliers and re-fillers who often sell shoddy and incompatible inks and carts that actually cause damage to the printers they are used in and then get off scott free when users complain to Epson about printer failing...

I would expect that legitimate ink manufactures will now have to use approved ink carts that have been licensed by Epson to ensure that the patents are respected (and that the carts and ink delivery system meet a minimum criteria). It might have an impact on pricing...but if the reason you are using 3rd party inks is for improved printing quality for certain types of work, I suspect the impact won't be a big issue...more at issue is the time it will take to work the licensing out. However, if the reason you are using 3rd party inks is simply price, I suspect that will be off the table.

So, is the copyright laws in the US anti-competitive too? That's what the people who rip MP3's of CD seem to claim...as a photographer who believes strongly in the importance of copyright protection for artists, I don't agree. Be careful what you ask for...
Logged
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2007, 10:38:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So, is the copyright laws in the US anti-competitive too? That's what the people who rip MP3's of CD seem to claim...as a photographer who believes strongly in the importance of copyright protection for artists, I don't agree. Be careful what you ask for...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is OT, but I'll put my 2 cents worth in. Copyright as we have known it is dead. This is true in the "real world" in practice, whether you are a musician, photographer, software company, etc. I have come full circle on this issue as I have seen the great success of the open source model. I'm viewing this page on Firefox browser (free open source), and my favorite online photo gallery software is JAlbum (free open source). I'm a little fond of my installation of Linux Ubuntu as well (free open source). I could list, oh, at least 40-50 more.

Some of my favorite music involves sampling of other music. And I believe one can make completely legitimate new works of art by using elements from other sources, like say photos found online or in publications, and reassembling them in new ways.

A few years ago I decided to embrace the new approach. I'm a photographer; Customers have violated photographer's copyrights since the photographic process was invented. If one ever sought to enforce it, often it was an "easy win," but one would find themselves with less customers: the one you made the claim against and ten others who didn't want to hire a litigious photographer. Now my work is rights inclusive and priced accordingly. I am paid once up front. This approach has not hurt my business.

Would I take action against someone who copied my image and used it directly for profit, i.e. they signed their name to it and presented it as theirs? Probably, unless they had some conceptual artistic intention. That said, my feelings now regarding copyright are: If you don't want to share it, you probably shouldn't create it. It works for me, commercially and artistically; I understand this approach may not work for everyone. I think everyone benefits more from the sharing of ideas, and the greater good is more important than protecting the "right" of an individual or small group to line their pockets.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2007, 11:53:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think everyone benefits more from the sharing of ideas, and the greater good is more important than protecting the "right" of an individual or small group to line their pockets.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150256\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion but if you copy one of my images (or break into my house and steal my personal property) I'll bring charges.

And copyright AIN'T about limiting the sharing of ideas...ideas can't be copyrighted, only physical executions. And if you know anything about the history of copyrights (Queen Ann's law) you would know that it's designed to let the "little guy" have first crack at benefiting from their own intellectual endeavors.

Even open source projects are protected by the GPL that contributors agree to. And it's not at all the same as licensing images to be used commercially. If you were a commercial photographer, I suspect your "tune" would be a bit different...
Logged
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2007, 12:04:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Cool! A philosophical debate!

I think it should first be agreed that patent protection and copywrite protection are two similar but distinct entities. Copywrite protects a reproducible intangible product such as recorded music, a photographic image or the printed word; it's the stream of 1's and zero's making up the "product" that is protected. Patent instead protects a unique idea or product from knock-off reproduction for a defined period, thereby rewarding the inventor for his/her ingenuity, and benefiting society at large by encouraging similar innovations. This is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution because the founding fathers comprehended the utility of rewarding innovation. However...the founding fathers also stipulated a firm limit on the duration of patents, to facilitate wider distribution of such advances over time.

Epson's patent on their "chipped" cartridges utterly violates the spirit of patent law, while adhering to the letter of it to "bake in" profits on ink sales. Is there anyone on this forum (other perhaps than Mr. Schewe) who sincerely believes that chipped ink carts were developed by Epson purely to improve printer function? That locking out third-party ink sources and preserving a monopoly in inks (which Epson Inc. itself buys from low-cost 3rd party suppliers) isn't the actual goal?

Mr. Cone performed an enormous service for the photographic community by pioneering a system of multiple dilutions of grey/black inks to facilitate black & white printing. Epson evidently chose to ignore him until they realized there might actually be a market for B&W printing; now that they have their K3 system to sell, they're trying to squash any competition with a legal sledgehammer rather than compete on quality.

Just sayin.
Logged
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2007, 01:26:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion but if you copy one of my images (or break into my house and steal my personal property) I'll bring charges.

....

Even open source projects are protected by the GPL that contributors agree to. And it's not at all the same as licensing images to be used commercially. If you were a commercial photographer, I suspect your "tune" would be a bit different...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150271\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is sort of my point. Your images have almost certainly been copied if they are in print or online, and your copyright violated, but you just don't know about it. Someone in Bangladesh, or New York City could be incorporating one of your images into an artistic collage (or a company proposal) and you will simply never know about it. That's what I mean when I say copyright as we have known it is dead in practice if not on paper. You'll "bring charges," and you may even win a judgment, but you will spend a fortune in the process and will likely never collect. For me, it is better to adaptto the new than hold onto the past. For me, the positives of the new outweigh the negatives. It's not unlike someone trying to hold on to shooting film vs. digital - the positives of the new outweigh the negatives (yep, there's a pun there). As an aside I'll note I'm still shooting some film, but only for the res. I get from 4x5 scans.

And I am a commercial photographer for 17 years now. Architectural and editorial. My artwork definitely takes priority, but my approach towards copyright hasn't hurt my business. Frankly, it simplifies things to be paid up front. I do have contracts that state what the usage is for, and because most of my clients seem to appreciate a forthright photographer, they have for the most part been forthright in stating what the image is to be used for and I price my upfront fee accordingly. Sure, there are a few bad eggs, but there are always a few bad eggs everywhere in every business, photographers certainly not excluded. Indeed, a significant percentage of jobs (particularly architectural jobs) these days come with paperwork attached dictating that the photography is "work for hire." It's quite alright if one doesn't sign - one just doesn't get the job. As I said, enforcing copyright in the past just cost me customers and a litigious reputation is not a good one to have.

I think photographers will have to adapt to changing attitudes about copyright. Adapt or die. In this case it may be, "Adapt, or hire a herd of lawyers.", but I don't think that's workable. One need only look at the RIAA and their countless frivolous lawsuits draining their resources and clogging the courts. Are they able to turn back the clock? No. Are they keeping their customers by suing them? No. Are they winning new customers by being litigious? No. Most importantly, are they adapting with a new business model? No (although many individual artists are adapting and proving that a musician may not need a big corporate record company to be successful...imagine that!)It's a brave new world. I like it. Technology and sharing of ideas is doing far more to allow the "little guy" to benefit from his intellectual endeavors than enforcement of copyrights. Just think if Google had to pay licensing fees for images that appear in searches (as some have attempted to enforce) how many "little guy" photographer's work would never be seen or heard. We would only see the images from the wealthy photogs and stock agencies who could afford it...and methinks the wealthy likes to play by those rules where they are the only players! Careful what you wish for indeed!
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2007, 02:22:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Epson evidently chose to ignore him until they realized there might actually be a market for B&W printing; now that they have their K3 system to sell, they're trying to squash any competition with a legal sledgehammer rather than compete on quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have you actually read the ITC findings or are you just piling on and letting your own perspective guide your impressions. Epson couldn't care less about Jon Cone other than the fact that a healthy 3rd party environment for inks and papers has helped Epson in the marketplace. No, what Epson is doing (aside from the mandatory defense of their IP to avoid losing it) is to reduce the amount of unfair competition from generally oriental (China and Korea) dumping of cheap and often incompatible inks on the marketplace and causing problems for consumers (and Epson).

I guess you haven't heard about the practice of bootlegging and counterfeiting that China seems to like to engage in and the product recalls caused by dangerous contamination such as lead and other unsafe materials being used in product destined for US markets. Yes, the companies that are buying the cheap products must share some of the blame but it seems just a bit odd that China manufacturers keep engaging in illegal or unsafe practices even down to having slave labor camps in remote areas of the country. Some skeptics may actually assume China is engaging in economic warfare (something I wouldn't be at all surprised about).

I'm not saying that Cone is in this same league...he has developed useful 3rd party solutions but his business model was not specifically targeted in the ITC findings. To Epson, Cone inks are a blip compared to the dumping of foreign made inks and carts being sold as replacement inks or refilled carts. That's the target of Epson's efforts.
Logged
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2007, 03:10:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, the companies that are buying the cheap products must share some of the blame but it seems just a bit odd that China manufacturers keep engaging in illegal or unsafe practices even down to having slave labor camps in remote areas of the country. Some skeptics may actually assume China is engaging in economic warfare (something I wouldn't be at all surprised about).


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Kind of makes one wonder where Epson's genuine products are manufactured? Hmmm

There is no shortage of companies having all sorts of products manufactured in China (not just counterfeit) to take advantage of ultra cheap labor and nonexistent environmental protections.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2007, 03:33:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Kind of makes one wonder where Epson's genuine products are manufactured? Hmmm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Most of the consumer inks come from Japan or Mexico. I think some stuff comes from Taiwan as well. But the differences are considerable since the manufactures supplying Epson must meet Epson's specs (something the knockoffs don't have to do) and meet Epson's quality assurance so that Epson can stand behind their warrantees, something that the cheapo knockoffs don't worry about-which is Epson real motive behind all this...yes, they don't like loosing sales to 3rd parties but that's biz. Where Epson gets screwed is where unkowning consumers are buying cheap knockoff inks thinking there's no difference from the Epson brand ink...until their printers clog beyond fixing and expect Epson to honor their warrantees and fix or replace the printers. That is a hard cost of doing business that is caused by the use of cheap knockoff 3rd party inks. And don't think that that sort of 3rd party ink is equal to or better than the Epson ink...it ain't.

There were reports that both the Russian Mafia (as well as other organized crime groups) were doing a lot of the "Genuine Epson Ink" cart forgeries last year in Europe-even down to the forged Epson logo and hologram. Yeah, I doubt that the ITC findings will do much to detere the Russian mob, but you have to understand exactly what Epson is fighting with these efforts...it ain't to put Jon Cone out of the biz.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2007, 03:35:41 PM by Schewe » Logged
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2007, 03:40:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Reminds of Chrysler transmissions. From 1990 - 1995, Chrysler minivans had all kinds of problems with transmissions (probably should have been a recall, but that's another story). Anyway, Chrysler was adamant about only using Chrysler ATF+3 (and now ATF+4) transmission oil in their transmissions. So much so that if you presented your Chrysler to a dealer with a transmission problem, they would first draw a sample from your transmission and if it wasn't ATF+3, they would not honor your warranty.

Sounds like Epson needs to do the same thing if their motive is to protect themselves from 3rd party ink users who are having problems they expect Epson to fix.
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2007, 05:29:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well.
I am sympathetic to Mr. Cone's frustration with this grotesquely anti-competitive monopoly-protection legislation. But does anyone seriously think that a letter-writing campaign will affect any decision made by "Mr. 24%"? The most corrupt, pro-business, pro-monopoly, anti-competitive, anti-art president in American history?

Just sayin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nice observation. Blame it on the president, despite the fact that it clearly originated in and was passed by a democrat controlled congress. Are we to believe Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are big fans of refilled Epson print cartridges?
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6880


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2007, 02:43:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Let's go back to basics and keep the issues sorted-out. The primary purpose of patent legislation is to grant a period of commerial protection for recuperating the front-end costs and risks of innovation. In that respect, its fundamental purpose is anti-competitive for a reason - whether you agree with it or not is a separate issue, but that's the reason. Patents have a defined life-period in order to not frustrate the benefits of competition over the long term.

There is nothing illegal about companies designing product systems optimized between the hardware and the consumables and taking out patents to protect those systems. That doesn't prevent other people from developing consumables that work with the hardware, provided they don't infringe Epson's patents. If the patent applications in the first place embedded illegal practices it must be presumed that the patents would not have been granted in their current form, or that the patent process was flawed or corrupted, a rather strong assumption.

Any company is entitled (and as Jeff pointed out indeed required) to seek legal protection from patent infringement. Once a body like the ITC has made a determination of the kind that it has, the only serious recourse is to appeal their decision through the channels provided in the law. Based on my previous experience with regulatory due process, I would think to do that you would have to identify prospectively robust grounds for appeal - for example whether the ITC committed specific errors of law in their decision or its application.

I'm not an American, but I lived there long enough and I can't imagine a letter-writing campaign to the President of the USA of the kind recommended above achieving anything - you'd first have to assume that any of these letters would peep through even the first level of filtering, and that assumption may be quite a stretch. At the very least, from the perspective of existing law and due process, you would have to argue a major failure to justify Executive intervention at this stage. I don't see how just saying it affects you adversely - even many thousands of such letters - would get anywhere. All kinds of perfectly legal things happen all the time that affect all manner of people adversely - but they still happen and there is no intervention from the Executive level.  I don't want to sound like a wet blanket here - maybe I do, but I think this is the reality. We'll get cheaper ink cartridges if people can design them without infringing Epson's patents, or if some legal process were to determine that their patents are somehow illegal.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 350


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2007, 02:11:38 AM »
ReplyReply

For some this is just interesting conversation or an issue of political principal, or whatever. I don't really intend to address all those posts. On the off chance anyone is truly interested here are a few more thoughts.
First of all, over on the Black and white list-
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Digital...dWhiteThePrint/
Paul Roark, a former FTC antitrust enforcer and developer of many ink sets for MIS, has posted a great deal about the decision and it's implications. More importantly, advice on who and what to write that could have some impact.
It'd be somewhat silly to copy all those posts over to here, so please take a look there if even slightly inclined, it's been an ongoing thread.
There are also additional informative posts from Jon Cone.

The suggestion here that Epson, to protect it's patents, has no choice but to vigorously pursue any and all potential infringement, and in the next breath suggest they would somehow turn a blind eye to Cone is clearly bunk.

I think we all agree patents are important. With virtually unlimited resources though, they can clearly be used as bludgeons in the marketplace. To suggest photographers interested in the issue of copyright and intellectual property are disingenuous in criticizing This action is missing the point.
I may hold copyright on an image I made in ancient history, for the long gone Aldus annual report, of tools projected on a hand. But to then attempt to patent the practice projecting images on a hand would only be done to make it so I would be the one and only possible provider for that approach to photography. It's clearly just to eliminate competition where there previously was competition, and becomes an anti-trust issue.
The protection of anti-trust is subject to political fashion, for lack of a better word, and we see a different approach to it in the EU than we do right now in the US.
This has nothing to do with patents or copyrights, it has to do with monopolies and huge trusts.
Until the chipped carts, and now the protection of the IDEA of chipped carts, third parties provided the innovation. Somehow Epson prospered. We all love their hardware, no question.

It may seem silly to some to get this worked up about ink. But I want to continue to make my art how I choose, and do whatever I want with tools I paid for and own. There are less and less materials options available to us today. I also am weary of continually doing nothing, as every little thing that matters much somehow diminishes, with the depressing assumption there's nothing to be done.
Tyler
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6880


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2007, 06:11:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Anti-Trust legislation and patent Law are two different things aimed at different issues. As I said yesterday, patent law protects inventions/intellectual property from competition for a period of time, whereas anti-trust law circumscribes business practices which frustrate competition. This may sound contradictory, but once we understand the basis, the objectives and the specific behaviours underlying each of these avenues of legislation it isn't.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2007, 10:16:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This has nothing to do with patents or copyrights, it has to do with monopolies and huge trusts.
Until the chipped carts, and now the protection of the IDEA of chipped carts, third parties provided the innovation. Somehow Epson prospered. We all love their hardware, no question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Uh, no...you STILL don't get it. Your example regarding copyright is not applicable (it ain't even close) and you STILL don't understand what it is the Epson patented...it ain't the "idea of chipped carts" and if you think 3rd parties provided "innovation" you got that wrong too.

With intellectual property, the creators have the right to exploit the property first and foremost. Without that right, creativity would be hindered and thus progress. You might not LIKE the practice but it's stood the test of time in the US Constitution...in fact, in the original Constitution, the only "rights" mentioned are the rights of creators to benefit from their creations...remember Ben Franklin? He was an inventor and worked to get that language into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was an amendment added much later.

This is ALL about the right of an creator to benefit from their creations...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad