Atomic Art - Engraving Etc. Forum

<body> <h1>Full Version: <a href="https://www.engravingetc.org:443/archive/index.php?webtag=EE&msg=5945.12">Atomic Art</a></h1><a name="a5945_12"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=5945.12">#12</a>]<br /> 3 Feb 2007<br /><b>To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=5945.9">#9</a>] 3 Feb 2007</p> <div class="quotetext" id="quote"><b>quote: </b></div><div class="quote">There are lots of other technologies that can compete at much cheaper prices and actually print better on more media.</div><br /> <br /> Rodney,<br /> <br /> Competing with the durabilty of the AA image, on glass/tile, from what I've seen, could only be rivaled with the kiln fired decal process; another expensive, licensed proposition.<br /> <br /> Keep in mind, the size of an image, using the decal process would be limited to the size of the (laser printer's) carrier sheet.<br /> <br /> An image generated through other printing methods would be subject to severe UV fading and possible adhesion problems. Not permanent over the long haul.<br /> <br /> Although they'll be exhibiting at the ARA show, the awards industry definitely isn't the AA audience.<br /> <br /> Architectural applications and the monument industry, are most likely where they'll find inroads. In those markets, a $150 per sq. ft. price tag won't represent an impenetrable roadblock.<br /> <br /> In reading the SMC thread, I saw the name Lightwave pop up. First time I'd heard the name and I have no idea what their angle will be, but it sounds like a competitor.<br /> <br /> How can that be, if Thermark has formed an alliance with AA?<br /> <br /> I agree with Ken, in that, there lies an incongruency and a potential tug-o-war, between Thermark's desire to cover the world with their product and AA's desire to limit the process to confined territories.<br /> <br /> In that kind of uneasy environment, I'd be holding my cards close to my vest as well.<br /> <br /> AA faces an uphill battle, to be sure, but I think they'll find successful markets for the process.<p class="edit_text">EDITED: 3 Feb 2007 by DGL</p> <hr /><a name="a5945_13"></a><p><b>From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=5945.13">#13</a>]<br /> 3 Feb 2007<br /><b>To: sprinter</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=5945.10">#10</a>] 3 Feb 2007</p> <p>Somebody (like Atomic Art) can get a patent that is an improvement of another patented process. Since their paptent requires using another patented process, they have to license the original process from the original patent holder, but their improvement patent allows them to restrict who can use that improved process. </p> <p>Often improvement patents are cross licensed with the original patent holder, allowing both parties to use the combined process. Other times the people with the improved process pay for the rights on the original process and keep the improved process to themselves. </p> <p>Of course, if the people with the improved process can't get the original patent holder to license that patent, then nobody can use the improved process (neither the holder of the improved patent or the holder of the original). The improvement patent has no effect on the original patent holder using the original patent, just on them using the improved process.</p> <p>Patents with improvements of existing patents are probably more common than original patents.</p> <hr /><p align="center">Show messages: <a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=5945.1">All</a>  <a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=5945.1">1-11</a>  12-13</p> <h4><a href="lthread_list.php?webtag=EE">Back to thread list</a> | <a href="llogout.php?webtag=EE">Login</a></h4> <h6>© 2025 <a href="http://www.beehiveforum.net/" target="_blank">Project Beehive Forum</a></h6> </body>