Epson court decision

[bravo]

I'm still OK with buying refillable ink cartridge than buying original ones because
this is much cheaper because we need only buy the ink and some other small raw materials, and besides it is also environment-friendly (Imagine how many cartridges are being recycled through refilling).

I can now recall the case of Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components. The Court ruled that reverse-engineering the handshaking procedure to enable compatibility did not violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

[steve_782]

You all know Kodak sued every camera manufacturer for patent infringement on sensors and won? They then licensed the manufacturers to use the Kodak patents.

Maybe that's all the cartridge manufacturers need to do is license the patents...? No, that would just be too easy, and you all couldn't get indignant and upset...bidness is bidness...and the research that goes into technology isn't free - and that's what patents protect - the investment made in the technology.

If Epson got .50 cents or a dollar per cartridge for 3rd party license of the technology would you really care?

[gbogatko]

I just got off the phone with MIS. If you're looking for refillable cartridges, I'd order. It sounded like they were going to discontinue selling them as of next week.
Jay

(sigh....) I liked the MIS B/W inks, and was getting really good at making good looking B/W prints. Now it's going away. Oh, well... I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet and invest in a chemical darkroom. It's being __forced__ to do it that pi__es me off.

gb

[gbogatko]

All may not be lost. It looks like the USPTO may have rejected the patents in question.

December 20, 2007
NINESTAR PRESS RELEASE: ZHUHAI, China — Recently, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an office action, which rejects Seiko Epson's two patents, including claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 of U.S Patent No.6,502,917( the “917” patent) , and claims 1-8,15-17,19-23,26-30,33 and 37-39 of U.S. Patent No. 7,008,053(the” 053” patent), for the reason that the patents applied some prior art and was lack of novelty and creativity. This rejection by U.S. PTO is in response to Ninestar’s request to re-examine the invalidity of the patents in September 2007.

According to Ninestar, this initial rejection of the “917” patent and “053” patent by the U.S.PTO will raise a question of rationality of the order issued by ITC and create favorable conditions for Ninestar's legal cases in the Federal Circuit Court in the future and for Ninestar to continuously sell its own patented products in the U.S. market.