The way I see it, using 3rd party inks is the same as using 3rd party papers. And I don't buy the argument one bit that they are selling the printers at a discount!
I do understand why Epson would pursue this argument however because eventually, as newer features become less and less important, photographers will hold onto their current models longer and longer. As this happens, it will be increasingly important for Epson to make money off of ink and paper.
I don't have a printer, nor any plans to buy one
I'm enjoying my indonesian sweat-shop underwear though.
Originally Posted by Stephen Best
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/D...WhiteThePrint/
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
I post this as an open question to those who may have knowledge about the implications of this matter.
What would happen if one were to develop a CIS ink delivery system that did not utilize individual carts and disabled the chip function on the Epson printers? How would this be infringing on Epson patents? Does the individual printer purchaser have the right to modify the equipment that they purchased in any manner that is suitable for their use?
The chip function, as I see it, on an Epson printer is only useful for those who use the Epson or third party refillable carts.
Here's a couple of Paul's posts vis a vis the patent/anti-trust aspect:
There some precedent for using the antitrust laws to attack the predatory
use of patents. When I was at the FTC, such an action against Xerox is what
freed up the copier market. No one is arguing that some patent system is
not needed, but it has been and increasingly is being used by the large
companies to stifle competition.
One of the early cases I started involved AT&T's use of patents on silicon.
I remember well the plight of a small company that had no choice but to
cross-license all its technology to AT&T or be crushed by the large legal
club the giant could use against the small start-ups. This matter became
part of the big AT&T case and settlement. The little company was Intel.
As a result, it seems that more recently, patent has won out over anti-trust/competition in recent decisions - which seems to favour Epson in this case (at least in the US - in Europe, the balance seems to have gone the other way more recently).The *NET* competitive effect is the issue. "Competition," not the survival
of a competitor is the issue. Epson's competition with HP and Canon is
included.
Prohibitions against "tying" agreements, in the past,
would have knocked this down, but "modern" (heavily influenced by Chicago
School economics) antitrust does not trust "per se" theories and looks at a
"bigger" ("rule of reason") picture of competition. In theory this is
great, but in practice, the issues become so complex that the side with the
most money to hire the best lawyers (and lobbyists, etc.) often has a huge
advantage.
Healthy horizontal competition among HP, Canon and Epson is probably a major
part of the big picture the policy makers are hearing about, and it's very
intense. Did you notice Kodak is explicitly competing on ink price?
"Below cost" sales prohibitions might have in the past stopped the
loss-leader character of competition that has developed. But that approach
is also discredited.
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
The Epson business model is similar to cell phone markets. Give away the hardware make money on service contracts. In this case the service contract is Epson inks. Dilute the market with after market inks and the profit model takes a nosedive. Epson is protecting their investment and market share. Standard business fare.
There is precedent in software copyright laws (the DMCA act and similar things which make it illegal to reverse engineer inventions and modify them). I suspect it will be a simple stretch for a court to apply this to hardware, and then when you pay a company good money for something it will not really belong to you but simple be a "licensed material good".
Part of the reason for all this furor over international property might relate to the fact that a good portion of the wealthiest North Americans sit in office towers manipulating data rather than in workshops manipulating material goods. In order to keep the financial power it's in their interests to fight for laws that put higher value on the ideas than in the material goods themselves. This is all to justify the modern economic system whereby the material goods are (pardon the pun) immaterial and those factory workers who physically cobble them together undercompensated. The emphasis is on the patent holders, who are generally not actually the inventors but are rather just the capitalist ruling class. If you've ever signed, or been asked to sign a contract with a big company to hand over all your inventions including those on your own time and dollar during your employment period you'll agree with this.
I don't necessarily believe that, just an idea that crossed my mind just now. I like throwing ideas around.
Last edited by walter23; 6-Nov-2007 at 11:51.
Though Lexmark tried something similar under DMCA and failed badly as I recall
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050221-4636.html (among many other links)
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
...which would ultimately be the Gillette business model.
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. Chips should still be available. I ordered empty cartridges since I still have a few oz of both B&W and color remaining. I also ordered some of the cheap filled cartridges since I like to use those for head cleaning. (Not sure if they will ship since their stock has been depleted.)
Jay
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks