3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.

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

If I had to give up third party inks I would give up my Epson printer.

I paid for my Epson printer.
I pay for each pack of Epson paper.
I will not be forced to buy exhorbitantly overpriced Epson ink.

"Arthur Entlich" 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

"Arthur Entlich" 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" wrote:


"Arthur Entlich" 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:

http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/20...20071022_2.htm

Art

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.

It is found at:

http://itc.epson.com/

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" 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.

They will be able to make the ink, assuming it doesn't infringe on any
Epson patents, but the cartridges are another matter entirely.

Art

wrote:

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:13:30 -0600, "DanG" wrote:


"Arthur Entlich" 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" 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

Bob Headrick wrote:


"Arthur Entlich" 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 ,
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