OT: How to stop Epson ink primer waste?

Comments

craftech wrote on 3/6/2007, 5:21 AM
I guess the Epson patent on DVD printing with an inkjet printer is the same as a copyright or am I wrong?
JJK
=============
Actually it is a simple anti-trust violation that is being ignored.

John
johnmeyer wrote on 3/6/2007, 8:36 AM
Simple: We have a government that puts the interests of large corporations ahead of the public interest.

???
TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/6/2007, 9:36 AM
Whether it be the oil industry, the pharmaseutical industry, or the communications (news media) industry

What, you forget to mention the Music & Film industries? :D
riredale wrote on 3/6/2007, 9:51 AM
Oh, please. Let's not turn this into an anti-capitalism rant.

As Spot would tell you, copyright exists in order to pay creators of content. Patents exist for similar reasons, to reward people who think of "new" ideas. The PTO (Patent & Trademark Office) defines "new" to be something "not obvious to one skilled in the art." I have several patents on various things, including PivoTop, a laptop design that allows one to use the laptop much more easily on a crowded airline tray table.

In this case it appears that the Epson guys got to the patent finish line ahead of Canon, so they get the prize for a few more years. After that, the field is wide open. Fortunately, as mentioned, one can VERY EASILY modify many of the Canon printers to do disk printing, and it works great.

I had an HP laser printer a few years back, and I hated the way the drivers took over my computer in a variety of areas. All I wanted was just a printer driver, but no. In fairness, the HP stuff is very well-made, and I worked for them for 2 years back in the '80s. They're on a roll now with Bill Hurd having replaced Carly Fiorina, and we have quite a bit of HP stock, so that's good.

I've come to the conclusion that pretty much any patent is obvious to one skilled in the art when reverse-engineering. Still, the whole point is to somehow reward new ideas, and the process is full of give-and-take. The PTO examiner rejects all our claims, our attorneys counter with new language, the examiner rejects the new language, our attorneys reinterpret the rejections, and so on. Eventually there is a wary handshake after both sides have drawn blood. Like making sausages, the process might turn your stomach even if the final result is a good thing.
craftech wrote on 3/6/2007, 10:33 AM
I have several patents on various things, including PivoTop, a laptop design that allows one to use the laptop much more easily on a crowded airline tray table.
================
Lot's of luck with that Riredale. It sounds like a great idea.

John
riredale wrote on 3/6/2007, 11:06 AM
John, thank you. It is very frustrating at times. People expect if they build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door. That's not my experience to date.
craftech wrote on 3/6/2007, 11:29 AM
It is very frustrating at times. People expect if they build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door. That's not my experience to date.
================
I always assume most people are like I am and have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for those who obviously work really hard and use their intelligence and skill to accomplish something with limited resources to do so. Stick with it Riredale. I KNOW you will eventually succeed if you do and you will be happy you did.

John
kdm wrote on 3/6/2007, 11:30 AM
I was actually told by a store rep (Staples I think) that Epson reports empty cartridges well before they are empty - that may have been part of the class action suite.

Epson has locked up the market here in the US, and that's a monopoly, which should be in violation of anti-trust laws (though I'm sure they found a loophole).

I buy refurb cartridges locally now. As soon as there is another option than Epson for CD/DVD writer, I'll never buy another Epson on principle alone.

When in CompUSA not long ago, I started talking to an employee about this while looking at printers, and expressed my disgust with the lack of options, esp. when he said Epson held the patent on CD/DVD disc printing and there were no other options. I then looked at his shirt that didn't seem to match the red CompUSA attire - turns out he was an Epson rep.... :-) lol. at least he heard it straight from a soon to be ex-customer.
blink3times wrote on 3/6/2007, 11:46 AM
"In this case it appears that the Epson guys got to the patent finish line ahead of Canon, so they get the prize for a few more years. After that, the field is wide open. Fortunately, as mentioned, one can VERY EASILY modify many of the Canon printers to do disk printing, and it works great."



Yes, and patents were designed to protect ones idea... this is a good thing. But when a patent sets up a monopoly (example: Epson)... this is a bad thing... competition keeps us honest. A monopoly tends to breed dishonesty (example: again... Epson)

It turns around and bites you in the butt sooner or later though. For years my local cable company had a monopoly... not now... and I will NEVER subscribe to them again. Epson had a Monopoly in Canada... not now.... and I will NEVER buy another Epson again.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/6/2007, 6:03 PM
As Spot would tell you, copyright exists in order to pay creators of content. Patents exist for similar reasons, to reward people who think of "new" ideas. The PTO (Patent & Trademark Office) defines "new" to be something "not obvious to one skilled in the art."

Nice thing about patents is that they last 20 years from the date it's filed. Not like copyright. If copyrights were like patents the world would be full of ideas. :)

If cannon REALLY wanted to, they could come up with a completely different way to print on discs & thus have their own patent. But they don't. It's not a monopoly because there ARE other cd/dvd printing options out there. Not Epson's fault they're the best sub-$300 one. It's the other printer companies fault for not spending millions on R&D for something 0.5% of the printing user base uses.
Coursedesign wrote on 3/6/2007, 6:32 PM
The USPTO is famous for going "ooooh!" over the simplest and most obvious notions and giving them a 20-year advantage at least in terms of legal settlements.

So it seems the European Patent and Canadian Authorities weren't quite as impressed with Epson's astonishing feat of printing on a flat disk?

blink3times wrote on 3/6/2007, 6:38 PM
"Not Epson's fault they're the best sub-$300 one."

They're not. Epson's patent rights in the USA has more to do with the wording (which is being challenged in court) then it does the technology. I have an Epson printer (r320)... I do not have the canon yet... will buy when the epson's ink runs out... but I have seen the canon cd/dvd printers in action.... Thy're much smoother than my R320 ever was.

There is NOTHING special about the epson cd/dvd technology at all. In fact my guess is that MUCH more thinking, developing, and money went into the epson ink tank chip system in hopes of FORCING the consumer's hand in the ink department.
GenJerDan wrote on 3/7/2007, 5:08 AM
But when a patent sets up a monopoly (example: Epson)... this is a bad thing... competition keeps us honest.

Um...pretty much by definition, a patent creates a monopoly. Unless someone else licenses the design.
Paul Mead wrote on 3/7/2007, 5:46 AM
So how is it that HP sells disk printers in the US? Are they licensing from Epson or did they find a way around it?
JJKizak wrote on 3/7/2007, 7:59 AM
Don't forget that HP was the industry leader in the "Ink not quite out yet" syndrome and got crucified for it.

JJK
johnmeyer wrote on 3/7/2007, 8:04 AM
But when a patent sets up a monopoly (example: Epson)... this is a bad thing... competition keeps us honest.

Finally, a smart, lucid insight instead of unhinged rhetoric. You are absolutely 100% correct. Well done.

Now of course, you can take issue with the idea of patents, but if we do away with them, its going to be tough to incent people to invest money in a huge development effort that, once shipped, can easily be duplicated.

Before I got into this retirement hobby of video editing, I spent fifteen years consulting with startups. I can't tell you how many times I was in a meeting on Sand Hill Road with one of the major VCs and they'd ask the entrepreneur (whose idea was not going to be protected by a patent): What is to stop Microsoft from duplicating this idea as soon as you ship?

And when there was no answer, they didn't get the money.

It's not that Microsoft is evil (and the question wasn't always about Microsoft; lots of these startups were not in market niches that Microsoft would enter). Instead, it is simply a fact of life that discovery is hard, but once understood, the basic idea is easy to grasp. For instance, I could never in a million years have discovered the theory of relativity, but it was easy to understand, once explained.

JJKizak wrote on 3/7/2007, 8:18 AM
Recently a lady physicist at Harvard slowed down light to "0" speed into a group of super cold matter then moved the matter and re-activated the light without loss of information. This kind of puts a wrinkle into Relativity. I did like the concept though of infinity and zero being the same point in space.
JJK
johnmeyer wrote on 3/7/2007, 9:05 AM
Recently a lady physicist at Harvard slowed down light to "0" speed ...

I would have said you were nuts, but I just Googled it and came up with this:

Physicists Slow Speed of Light

from 1999.

Since everything I learned about relativity absolutely required that the speed of light be a universal constant, I cannot immediately wrap my mind around this.

Very interesting ...
JJKizak wrote on 3/7/2007, 11:19 AM
I have seen the latest article from the Harvard Paper (some kind of publication) which was within the last month or so stating these (alleged) facts. Of course I believe everything I read but usually somebody else has to confirm and duplicate the data before the real smart guys believe it. It does kind of "warp" your brain a bit, all puns intended.
JJK
riredale wrote on 3/7/2007, 11:42 AM
Haven't seen the article(s) you guys are referring to, but light can be slowed down.

Remember?--it's the very reason that light rays bend when entering a glass lens. The speed of light is a constant only in a vacuum.
blink3times wrote on 3/7/2007, 1:46 PM
"Um...pretty much by definition, a patent creates a monopoly. Unless someone else licenses the design."




What are you talking about???

Patents don't create monopolies! They create unique design types... nothing more. Crane has a patent out on all their toilets... but does that mean all man kind owns a crane toilet and nothing but??? Intel has their chip... AMD has theirs... yadda, yadda.

But how come HP doesn't have a cd/dvd printer in the USA??? (this may have changed) How come Canon doesn't have cd/dvd printers in the USA??? Do you think these multi million dollar company's are so dumb that they can't come up with their own design type??

Epson has done some neat little 'jigging and jogging ' with their patents and THIS is why other company's can't get in on the action... which is why it's being challenged in court.

If a patent in fact created monopolies then this world would be held up for ransom with every corner turned.
johnmeyer wrote on 3/7/2007, 3:16 PM
Patents don't create monopolies!

Then Epson doesn't have a monopoly and everyone should quit complaining.
blink3times wrote on 3/7/2007, 4:32 PM
I'm not complaining at all! I live in Canada... the Canon cd/dvd printers are loacted at my computer store just down the street. Epson couldn't find enough people up here to climb in bed with.
DGates wrote on 3/7/2007, 4:49 PM
I've put many Epson executive's children through college with all the ink I've purchased. Even getting it at Costco isn't that much cheaper. Damn Epson cartel!