Epson has succeeded in stopping the distribution of most 3rd party ink
cartridges through a successful lawsuit. I personally question the
wisdom of the court in this case and believe it may prove to swing a
shift in the color inkjet industry.
Here is the Epson press release:
If you have not yet read it yet, here is the original Epson press release:
"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:EGiWi.164916$Da.33959@pd7urf1no...
> Epson has succeeded in stopping the distribution of most 3rd party ink
> cartridges through a successful lawsuit. I personally question the wisdom
> of the court in this case and believe it may prove to swing a shift in the
> color inkjet industry.
>
> Here is the Epson press release:
>
> If you have not yet read it yet, here is the original Epson press release:
>
> http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/20...20071022_2.htm
>
> Art
>
>
The article doesn't really specify what carts/tanks are affected, so I
wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:13:30 -0600, "DanG" <nospam@q.com> wrote:
>
>"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
>news:EGiWi.164916$Da.33959@pd7urf1no...
>> Epson has succeeded in stopping the distribution of most 3rd party ink
>> cartridges through a successful lawsuit. I personally question the wisdom
>> of the court in this case and believe it may prove to swing a shift in the
>> color inkjet industry.
>>
>> Here is the Epson press release:
>>
>> If you have not yet read it yet, here is the original Epson press release:
>>
>> http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/20...20071022_2.htm
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>
>The article doesn't really specify what carts/tanks are affected, so I
>wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
>
I think someone like Lyson is a bigger threat since their inks rival
Epson OEM. I don't think they can slap Lyson out of the market
Sounds great. Maybe now the fly by niters will disclose the truth.
Arthur Entlich wrote: Epson has succeeded in stopping the distribution of most 3rd party ink cartridges through a successful lawsuit. I personally question the wisdom of the court in this case and believe it may prove to swing a shift in the color inkjet industry.
Here is the Epson press release:
If you have not yet read it yet, here is the original Epson press release:
There are more documents available. It concerns ALL desktop models, and
if signed into law by GW Bush (as is expected), will likely put an end
to import into the US or manufacture by US companies or any cartridges
which violate the patents, not only for Epson products, but probably all
inkjet printer models, as the law will be broad enough to "protect" all
manufacturers of patented cartridges.
Epson has a new website dealing with just this issue directed to
manufacturers and importers of cartridges fitting their printers.
I understand there are about 500 pages involved in the court documents.
I believe this is just the thin edge of the wedge, and more will follow
from other manufacturers, and that Epson and others will also attempt to
make chip resetters non-functional and or illegal to manufacture.
At this point, my sense is that 3rd party inkjet printer companies,
consumers, and any lawyers looking into class action based upon
anti-trust legislation or consumer protection laws regarding design
flaws or undocumented restrictive features such as the shut down when
waste ink pads are deemed full (which is not documented, and creates an
"end of life" condition which is relatively costly to repair
legitimately) need to be pursued legally.
Since probably all printer manufacturers will jump on any new
legislation to protect their ink sales, I cannot suggest one brand over
another at this time.
Art
DanG wrote:
> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:EGiWi.164916$Da.33959@pd7urf1no...
>
>>Epson has succeeded in stopping the distribution of most 3rd party ink
>>cartridges through a successful lawsuit. I personally question the wisdom
>>of the court in this case and believe it may prove to swing a shift in the
>>color inkjet industry.
>>
>>Here is the Epson press release:
>>
>>If you have not yet read it yet, here is the original Epson press release:
>>
>>http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/20...20071022_2.htm
>>
>>Art
>>
>>
>
>
> The article doesn't really specify what carts/tanks are affected, so I
> wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:13:30 -0600, "DanG" <nospam@q.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>news:EGiWi.164916$Da.33959@pd7urf1no...
>>
>>>Epson has succeeded in stopping the distribution of most 3rd party ink
>>>cartridges through a successful lawsuit. I personally question the wisdom
>>>of the court in this case and believe it may prove to swing a shift in the
>>>color inkjet industry.
>>>
>>>Here is the Epson press release:
>>>
>>>If you have not yet read it yet, here is the original Epson press release:
>>>
>>>http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/20...20071022_2.htm
>>>
>>>Art
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The article doesn't really specify what carts/tanks are affected, so I
>>wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
>>
>
>
> I think someone like Lyson is a bigger threat since their inks rival
> Epson OEM. I don't think they can slap Lyson out of the market
"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:ECZWi.171700$th2.63884@pd7urf3no...
> There are more documents available. It concerns ALL desktop models, and
> if signed into law by GW Bush (as is expected), will likely put an end to
> import into the US or manufacture by US companies or any cartridges which
> violate the patents, not only for Epson products, but probably all inkjet
> printer models, as the law will be broad enough to "protect" all
> manufacturers of patented cartridges.
The ITC ruled that Epson's patents were valid, and that they were infringed
upon by the third parties. Patents law is in place to protect the original
inventors for a period of time. To suggest that the ruling should not go
forward would require that you either believe 1) the patents are not valid
or 2) that patent protection should not be applied in the US. Which is your
position? If 1), then which patents specifically do you believe are
invalid, despite the ITC's ruling?
Bob Headrick wrote:
>
>
> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:ECZWi.171700$th2.63884@pd7urf3no...
>> There are more documents available. It concerns ALL desktop models,
>> and if signed into law by GW Bush (as is expected), will likely put an
>> end to import into the US or manufacture by US companies or any
>> cartridges which violate the patents, not only for Epson products, but
>> probably all inkjet printer models, as the law will be broad enough to
>> "protect" all manufacturers of patented cartridges.
>
> The ITC ruled that Epson's patents were valid, and that they were
> infringed upon by the third parties. Patents law is in place to
> protect the original inventors for a period of time. To suggest that
> the ruling should not go forward would require that you either believe
> 1) the patents are not valid or 2) that patent protection should not be
> applied in the US. Which is your position? If 1), then which patents
> specifically do you believe are invalid, despite the ITC's ruling?
My problem with the whole OEM ink/patent issue is that the patents they
are using to shut down the sale of third party cartridges have nothing
to do with making the printer better for the consumer. They only exist
to force buyes to purchase high priced OEM ink. Would the Government
allow Toyota, Ford GM etc. to sell vehicles that only burned OEM
gasoline, used OEM oil or tires? Of course they wouldn't and letting
printer manufacturers do the same is just as wrong. IMO, patent law is
meant to protect a product that is innovative and new to the market and
not to protect an arbitrary cartridge configuration/chip that means
nothing to the functionality of the overall product. At least I can do
one thing...... never buy Epson products of any type.
In article <2OGdnZm9qtW0TLHanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, cds@erols.com says...
>
<snip>
>
> My problem with the whole OEM ink/patent issue is that the patents they
> are using to shut down the sale of third party cartridges have nothing
> to do with making the printer better for the consumer.
So? Patent infringement is patent infringement. Benefit to the
consumer has nothing to do with it.
> They only exist
> to force buyes to purchase high priced OEM ink.
I think so too. Epson claims a different reason.
> Would the Government
> allow Toyota, Ford GM etc. to sell vehicles that only burned OEM
> gasoline, used OEM oil or tires?
Why would the government stop Toyota, Ford, or GM from doing that if
it was a patented gasoline or tire? It wouldn't be illegal for them to
do so. Stupid and foolish, but not illegal.
> Of course they wouldn't and letting
> printer manufacturers do the same is just as wrong. IMO, patent law is
> meant to protect a product that is innovative and new to the market and
> not to protect an arbitrary cartridge configuration/chip that means
> nothing to the functionality of the overall product.
Epson obviously thinks differently. The court agreed.
> At least I can do
> one thing...... never buy Epson products of any type.
>
Yes, I don't buy Epson products for the same reason, but chipping
their printer cartridges isn't illegal, just greedy.
Bill wrote:
> In article <2OGdnZm9qtW0TLHanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> cds@erols.com says...
> <snip>
>
>> My problem with the whole OEM ink/patent issue is that the patents they
>> are using to shut down the sale of third party cartridges have nothing
>> to do with making the printer better for the consumer.
>
> So? Patent infringement is patent infringement. Benefit to the
> consumer has nothing to do with it.
That is my point. They are using the patent system to force their
printer buyers to use OEM ink. It does nothing to improve the function
of the printer. Because it is legal it doesn't make it right.
>> They only exist
>> to force buyes to purchase high priced OEM ink.
>
> I think so too. Epson claims a different reason.
Anyone with more than two neurons in their skull knows Epson is lying.
>> Would the Government
>> allow Toyota, Ford GM etc. to sell vehicles that only burned OEM
>> gasoline, used OEM oil or tires?
>
> Why would the government stop Toyota, Ford, or GM from doing that if
> it was a patented gasoline or tire? It wouldn't be illegal for them to
> do so. Stupid and foolish, but not illegal.
Actually, I don't believe they can prevent after market parts suppliers
from selling compatible parts for any vehicle. If the automakers could
get away with it they would be using it to their advantage.
>> Of course they wouldn't and letting
>> printer manufacturers do the same is just as wrong. IMO, patent law is
>> meant to protect a product that is innovative and new to the market and
>> not to protect an arbitrary cartridge configuration/chip that means
>> nothing to the functionality of the overall product.
>
> Epson obviously thinks differently. The court agreed.
Still doesn't make it right or mean it will stand. It is just one legal
decision that hopefully will be challenged. The third party vendors
need to pool their resources and effort to make a serious challenge.
>> At least I can do
>> one thing...... never buy Epson products of any type.
>>
>
> Yes, I don't buy Epson products for the same reason, but chipping
> their printer cartridges isn't illegal, just greedy.
3rd party ink cartridge in some peril. 
Linear Mode
