Full Version: The "Cart" before The Horse?
From: UncleSteve [#44]
14 Apr 2006
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#43] 14 Apr 2006
Could we start with the possibility that the judge was a 2nd cousin to the sister-in-law of the uncle's current wife? (devil)
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#45]
14 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#38] 14 Apr 2006
Well I have absolutely no knowledge of what was worked out for Tropical. Speculating about it Isn't going to do anything but waste our time, as no one will ever know...
What I do know is that If I were TOG, I would be busting my butt to get them to settle with me so I could cozy up to the feeding trough and get cart support from Epson as well.
Winning may be like losing if they aren't careful. They may dump the market value of inks creating a much lower profit margin situation for them than could be had, or be victims of the Epson suit if they do win the actual patent debate, but don't have the opportunity to partner with Epson like ST has done.
I guess time will tell.
Brian
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#46]
14 Apr 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#45] 15 Apr 2006
I agree with you on those points:
1) We don't know the details of the Sawgrass/Tropical Graphics situation.
2) Only time will tell how the TOG/ST lawsuit will shake out.
But the speculating is always interesting. :-)
From: UncleSteve [#47]
15 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#46] 15 Apr 2006
At any point during the original case they could have gone to the judge and thrown a wrench into the proceedings but opted to wait for the final decision to make their move.
Had they joined in with TG, the legal costs for both could have been less but, then again, the venue MAY have been tainted...
"Where did you meet your wife?"
"At the family reunion back in Carolina, of course!"
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#48]
15 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#47] 15 Apr 2006
TOG's decision not to jump into the original proceedings, may have been, (as you suggest), because the case was being heard in South Carolina; Sawgrass' home turf.
One would hope, in legal matters, the venue wouldn't play a role in a Judge's decision.
Evidently, TOG must have felt the ruling was biased, which is why they chose to initiate their case vs. Sawgrass, which resulted in successfully bringing the matter before a Texas court.
From: UncleSteve [#49]
15 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#48] 15 Apr 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#50]
15 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#49] 15 Apr 2006
That theory would rely on TOG, knowing the outcome of the Sawgrass/Tropical Graphics case, beforehand.
From: Mick [#51]
15 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#50] 15 Apr 2006
From: UncleSteve [#52]
15 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#50] 15 Apr 2006
They didn't have to "know" it.. just have a strong sense of the way the case was going and act on instinct. The whole proceeding looked skewed from the start so no reason to interfere.... until it became a threat.
From: UncleSteve [#53]
15 Apr 2006
To: Mick [#51] 15 Apr 2006
You are correct about the way it started, but the final result looked very different to me.
It seems to have gone from "you are infringing on my ink formula" to "I own sublimation ink! Period!' At least that is what I took from the Markham ruling.
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#54]
15 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#42] 15 Apr 2006
Hi Steve
Steve you will find that any prior art is "Prior Art" and must have been in the public domain so if TOG do win there is no way of hiding the prior art it is open for everyone.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#55]
15 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#54] 15 Apr 2006
In retrospect, do you think your case against Sawgrass, being held in South Carolina, had an affect; or was their case strong enough to prevail, regardless of venue?
As Steve suggests, I've seen the act of running sublimatable ink, through ink jet printers, referred to as the "Sawgrass Process" which makes claims beyond ink formulation.
That's the claim which TOG is challenging, so to compare TOG's action with your case, is apples to oranges, as Mick points out.
From: UncleSteve [#56]
15 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#54] 15 Apr 2006
I understand what you mean, but they were under no obligation to jump in and present it on anyone's behalf. In fact, if it IS valid prior art and was public knowledge, you might want to have a chat with your legal counsel about why they never found it or identified TOG as a prior manufacturer/supplier/etc. with the art/technology.
Many, if not most, patent attorneys know little about the industry they are working with beyond the leads that the client can provide them with. You provide the crumbs and they follow them down the path looking for materials to use on your behalf. Your opponent hides as many crumbs as they can for as long as they can..
Paul, As you may remember, I was a big supporter and proponent of TG until the rebels won the war between the states.
From: Mick [#57]
15 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#56] 15 Apr 2006
EDITED: 15 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#58]
15 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#55] 15 Apr 2006
At the time I thought it did matter but with hindsight I have changed my mind.
I dont think that TOG's case is any different than ours we used both arguments Prior Art & Formulation.
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#59]
15 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#56] 15 Apr 2006
Hi Steve
I believe that we got all the prior art that was available to us at the time, bear in mind that we also have access to information from the BASF case as well. From what I hear TOG say they have access to "New Priot Art Matierial" as of yet they have not produced any.
This case is cheduled to run until Oct 2007 but that may very well change if Epson decide they want to get involved.
From: Chap (TROPICAL) [#60]
15 Apr 2006
To: Mick [#57] 16 Apr 2006
Hi Mick
Mick during our case we thought we could utilize that fact but, it turned out that both of the companies stopped selling the inks because they did not work and clogged printers. Not many people knopw this but I actually tracked down the chemist that made those inks he is about 70 years old + now and I interviewed him. He addmitted that the inks he made caused problems and did infringe the SG patent. We also obtained some of the actual inks that he made at the time from either RPL or QLT I can't rememmber which one. If anyone is thinking of using this info in this case its a none starter
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#61]
15 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#58] 17 Apr 2006
Thank you for the added insight.
It will be interesting to see if TOG's change of venue (from So. Carolina to Texas) gives them an edge.
I know, that at the time of your case, you weren't able to get much (if any) financial help from the other (patent-infringing) sublimation ink suppliers of the day, in going up against Sawgrass.
From what you're saying, their ($) assistance wouldn't have had a substantive affect on the outcome of the case.
If Epson does get involved in the TOG vs Sawgrass matter, wouldn't their showing favoritism toward Sawgrass be seen as restraint of trade; as Steve alluded to, earlier in this thread?
After all, if the Sawgrass patents get shot down, despite the difference in size and market share, between the two companies, they're both in the same business.
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#62]
27 Apr 2006
To: Chap (TROPICAL) [#11] 27 Apr 2006
Your theory that Epson would license their patents to others I feel is clutching at straws a little. Take HP, as far as I am aware they defend their patents with a passion on the cartridges (which have the print heads on them) and I don't know of anywhere where you can buy a replica HP cartridge other than the complete rip offs from China (please correct me if I am wrong on this) and I dont see any reason why Epson would not follow the same business model. Also make note Epson don't sell sublimation inks so this does not affect their sales of regualr inks.
Paul Hirst
TG Europe
A little late to the party am I.
Paul, I have an HP DJ130 printer. Its a 24" wide format inkjet printer. It comes with user replaceable print heads, they're not part of the ink carts. Maybe this is the wave of the future and a way around such matters.
PS: This is HulaMike btw. I had to reregister with a new name since the last time I visited here.
EDITED: 27 Apr 2006 by BIGPIXEL
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#63]
27 Apr 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#62] 27 Apr 2006
Better late, than never. Thanks for contributing to the thread. Good question/theory.
BTW, feel free to run off as many of our members as you can.
Sorry folks! It's an inside joke. :-)
Show messages: 1-3 4-23 24-43 44-63 64-75