3rd party ink cartridge in some peril.

[measekite]

Tony wrote:

Gary Tait <[email protected]> wrote:



Brian <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:



Isn't it funny that nobody goes after the people who manufacturer or re-manufacturer toner cartridges ? I see there's already color toner cartridges for allot of the new color laser printers on the market..... No there's allot of patent infringement there to complain about!



I don't think remanufacturing would be a patent violation, unless there is patented technology preventing a spent cartridge being reused.



And that is exactly the issue here, Epson have patented a technology (essentially a chip) that cannot be copied without infringing patent.

And God said let their be light
And Epson created light


If this technology was applied to toner cartridges there would be some changes in the remanufacturing industry. However it would be extremely difficult to apply that technology to toner cartridges.

And God created the earth in 6 days
And God rested on the 7th day

And that is when toner carts were made


As a matter of fact, several manufacturers could do a lot more to make remanufacturing much more difficult if they wished. I could easily redesign some toner cartridges to make them too costly to remanufacture.

He is in da business.  Do you want to believe what he says.


The question is why don't they make them more difficult and I think there are several reasons for this. Ink cartridges are another matter; essentially, refilling them is just a matter if putting more ink into the cartridge (yes I know there are complications but most of the time that is true) so provided the ink does not infringe patents

Oh but it has and that is why Epson has been winning lawsuits.


the only way to protect their intellectual property is to use electronic means to make succesful refilling or production of compatibles difficult. Tony MS MVP Printing/Imaging

 

[Tony]

I just received an email from MIS indicating that they will no longer be
selling Epson refillable or prefilled aftermarket carts. They did reiterate
that they have aftermarket ink and refill kits for the OEM carts for most
Epson printers.

Yes Burt. This appears to be the case worldwide except of course in a few
countries that do not enforce patent rights.
There does not appear to be any issue with inks infringing patents, just the
chips.
Tony

 

[measekite]

Tony wrote:

"Burt" <[email protected]> wrote:



"Tony" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...



Gary Tait <[email protected]> wrote:



Brian <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:



Isn't it funny that nobody goes after the people who manufacturer or re-manufacturer toner cartridges ? I see there's already color toner cartridges for allot of the new color laser printers on the market..... No there's allot of patent infringement there to complain about!



I don't think remanufacturing would be a patent violation, unless there is patented technology preventing a spent cartridge being reused.



And that is exactly the issue here, Epson have patented a technology (essentially a chip) that cannot be copied without infringing patent. If this technology was applied to toner cartridges there would be some changes in the remanufacturing industry. However it would be extremely difficult to apply that technology to toner cartridges. As a matter of fact, several manufacturers could do a lot more to make remanufacturing much more difficult if they wished. I could easily redesign some toner cartridges to make them too costly to remanufacture. The question is why don't they make them more difficult and I think there are several reasons for this. Ink cartridges are another matter; essentially, refilling them is just a matter if putting more ink into the cartridge (yes I know there are complications but most of the time that is true) so provided the ink does not infringe patents the only way to protect their intellectual property is to use electronic means to make succesful refilling or production of compatibles difficult. Tony MS MVP Printing/Imaging



I just received an email from MIS indicating that they will no longer be selling Epson refillable or prefilled aftermarket carts. They did reiterate that they have aftermarket ink and refill kits for the OEM carts for most Epson printers.



Yes Burt. This appears to be the case worldwide except of course in a few countries that do not enforce patent rights. There does not appear to be any issue with inks infringing patents, just the chips. Tony


Great news in Alabama

 

[Frank]

measekite wrote:


Nothing but delusional bullshit.
He is a known idiot!
Frank

 

[Arthur Entlich]

The industry is indeed having some problems with Epson's patent
decisions and the court's and ITCC upholding their request.

For those living in the US, I suggest you write to your congressman and
state attorney general's office if you are impacted or unpleased with
the new approach taken.

Issues such as monopoly, unfair competition, anti-trust and tying laws,
environmental and waste management and toxic waste all enter into this.

I am hopeful this backfires in Epson's face so other manufacturers do
not think they can try similar strong arm tactics.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Ink can also be attached on patent grounds. It is more difficult ot
prove it infringes, but if it was indeed identical chemically and in
color, there may be "damages" demanded by the manufacturers.

Art

 

[Taliesyn]

Ink can also be attached on patent grounds. It is more difficult ot
prove it infringes, but if it was indeed identical chemically and in
color, there may be "damages" demanded by the manufacturers.

Chemical composition, yes. But I don't think anyone can patent a
certain shade of color for their own use.

-Taliesyn

 

[measekite]

The industry is indeed having some problems with Epson's patent
decisions and the court's and ITCC upholding their request.

I do not think it is any problem at all. The only real issue is that
the quality ink they produce (as well as Canon and HP) is that the
prices are very high.

For those living in the US, I suggest you write to your congressman
and state attorney general's office if you are impacted or unpleased
with the new approach taken. What a joke.

Issues such as monopoly, unfair competition, anti-trust

Oh yeah it is unfair for them to spend money doing the research and then
let the whores take it away from them.

 

[measekite]

There is no way that the fly by nights infringe on ink patents since the make crap and there is no way it is identical.

Arthur Entlich wrote: Ink can also be attached on patent grounds.  It is more difficult ot prove it infringes, but if it was indeed identical chemically and in color, there may be "damages" demanded by the manufacturers.

Art

Tony wrote:

"Burt" <[email protected]> wrote:

"Tony" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...

Gary Tait <[email protected]> wrote:

Brian <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


Isn't it funny that nobody goes after the people who manufacturer or
re-manufacturer toner cartridges ?  I see there's already color toner
cartridges for allot of the new color laser printers on the
market.....  No there's allot of patent infringement there to complain
about!

I don't think remanufacturing would be a patent violation, unless there is
patented technology preventing a spent cartridge being reused.

And that is exactly the issue here, Epson have patented a technology
(essentially a chip) that cannot be copied without infringing patent. If this
technology was applied to toner cartridges there would be some changes in the
remanufacturing industry. However it would be extremely difficult to apply that
technology to toner cartridges. As a matter of fact, several manufacturers
could do a lot more to make remanufacturing much more difficult if they wished.
I could easily redesign some toner cartridges to make them too costly to
remanufacture. The question is why don't they make them more difficult and I
think there are several reasons for this.
Ink cartridges are another matter; essentially, refilling them is just a matter
if putting more ink into the cartridge (yes I know there are complications but
most of the time that is true) so provided the ink does not infringe patents
the only way to protect their intellectual property is to use electronic means
to make succesful refilling or production of compatibles difficult.
Tony
MS MVP Printing/Imaging


I just received an email from MIS indicating that they will no longer  be selling Epson refillable or prefilled aftermarket carts.  They did reiterate that they have aftermarket ink and refill kits for the OEM carts for most Epson printers.


Yes Burt. This appears to be the case worldwide except of course in a few countries that do not enforce patent rights.
There does not appear to be any issue with inks infringing patents, just the chips.
Tony

 

[Frank]

There is no way that the fly by nights infringe on ink patents since the
make crap and there is no way it is identical.

Got any more lies you'd like to try and blow by us, you idiot!
Frank

 

[Frank]

measekite wrote:

More lies?
Give it up you stupid jerk.
Frank

 

[Jim Ford]

mouseshite wrote:

His usual inane drivel!

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I don't know how far that can go. For instance, colors can be
trademarked. Coca Cola red is owned by them, as are a number of the
cigarette company packaging colors.

It all seems strange, since color is a natural phenomenon, and yet,
manufacturers seem to be able to control use of colors.

Art

 

[GMAN]

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Tony
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Great news in Alabama<br>
</body>
</html>

Quit posting F$king HTML!!!!!!!!!

 

[Richard Steinfeld]

I don't know how far that can go. For instance, colors can be
trademarked. Coca Cola red is owned by them, as are a number of the
cigarette company packaging colors.

It all seems strange, since color is a natural phenomenon, and yet,
manufacturers seem to be able to control use of colors.

I think that there are protections and interpretations, otherwise, I
could trademark the word "the" and the letter "e," and tie up the whole
country.

For example, Coca Cola's color monopoly only would extend to cola drinks
and their packaging -- at a longer shot, perhaps the color of the drink
itself. But where, let's say, CC trademarked the color of a cherry drink
and another company bottled cherry juice the same color, well, I don't
think that CC would have a leg to stand on, although they might try a
scare suit anyway.

I can see an ink outfit patenting their precise ink formula, and their
colors in advertising, but couldn't win a suit claiming that a
competitor duplicated a specific color of the ink.

What we're dealing with here are the limits of interpreting restraint of
trade, which is against the law -- but the definition of "is" is still
open depending upon whom the President (my unelected president)
appoints, let's say.

 

[measekite]

it look nicer.&nbsp; get a modern news reader.

GMAN wrote:

&lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"&gt; &lt;html&gt; &lt;head&gt; &lt;meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"&gt; &lt;/head&gt; &lt;body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"&gt; Tony &lt;/pre&gt; &lt;/blockquote&gt; &lt;br&gt; Great news in Alabama&lt;br&gt; &lt;/body&gt; &lt;/html&gt;



Quit posting F$king HTML!!!!!!!!!

 

[GMAN]

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="sans-serif">it look nicer.&nbsp; get a modern news
reader.</font><br>
<br>
GMAN wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:[email protected]" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In article <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:[email protected]">&lt;REiZi.19660$
(e-mail address removed)&gt;</a>, boyhowdy wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">&lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
Transitional//EN"&gt;
&lt;html&gt;
&lt;head&gt;
&lt;meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"&gt;
&lt;/head&gt;
&lt;body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"&gt;
Tony
&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Great news in Alabama&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/body&gt;
&lt;/html&gt;
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->

Quit posting F$king HTML!!!!!!!!!
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

Looks nicer my ass!!!!! Posting HTML in usenet is the biggest loser thing to
do on earth.

 

[Frank]

Looks nicer my ass!!!!! Posting HTML in usenet is the biggest loser thing to
do on earth.

Yeah he's been warned about posting html many times in the pass. He is
the biggest lying piece of shit to ever post in any ng.
Frank

 

[Jim Ford]

Looks nicer my ass!!!!! Posting HTML in usenet is the biggest loser thing to
do on earth.

Nope - 'the biggest loser thing to do on earth' is to be a 'mouseshite'!

Jim Ford

 

[TJ]

Nope - 'the biggest loser thing to do on earth' is to be a 'mouseshite'!

Jim Ford

Oh, I don't know... At least he hasn't killed anyone - that we know of,
anyway. There was a story in this morning's Syracuse Post-Standard about
two guys in the next county that illegally went deer hunting the day
before the season opened. One guy shot at what he "thought" was a deer,
but never actually saw it. Turned out he shot and killed his companion.
He's been charged with criminally negligent homicide.

IMHO, THAT guy is a much bigger loser than our resident troll.

TJ