Full Version: The "Cart" before The Horse?
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. :-)
From: Mick [#64]
27 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#63] 27 Apr 2006
Any Gobi Gred guy will run lots off, unless you are a Cornhusker !!!!
An inside to Hula
EDITED: 27 Apr 2006 by MICK
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#65]
27 Apr 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#62] 27 Apr 2006
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#66]
27 Apr 2006
To: Mick [#64] 28 Apr 2006
From: Mick [#67]
28 Apr 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#66] 28 Apr 2006
Mike
Are you delusional or talking tennis ???
Mick
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#68]
28 Apr 2006
To: Mick [#67] 28 Apr 2006
From: Mick [#69]
28 Apr 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#68] 28 Apr 2006
From: BratDawg [#70]
28 Apr 2006
To: Mick [#69] 28 Apr 2006
From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#71]
28 Apr 2006
To: BratDawg [#70] 29 Apr 2006
Mick, you're the dilusional one if you think the Buffs are up to beating the Shuskers next Fall. Got any players left after the sex scandals? I guess I should compliment the Golden Buffs on their choice of infraction. I'd rather see a bunch of 19 year olds fighting over PT than some other silly thing. So lets go Wild Game (yuck) vrs Fresh Opah this season. 5# each?
Gobi
Gred!
HulaMike
EDITED: 28 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#72]
28 Apr 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#71] 29 Apr 2006
Mike,
By definition, if there's a sex scandal, surely "players" had to be involved. B-)
BTW, I took the liberty of replacing your text (blush) in your previous post, with an actual blush.
Hope you don't mind.
EDITED: 28 Apr 2006 by DGL
From: UncleSteve [#73]
29 Apr 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#72] 29 Apr 2006
Are you inferring that it may have been the coach and staff or school administration that perpetrated the "crime" ? (devil)
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#74]
29 Apr 2006
To: UncleSteve [#73] 29 Apr 2006
Player, in the sense of someone who "gets around.".
From: Mick [#75]
29 Apr 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#71] 29 Apr 2006
I feel i will not have to worry about parting with 5# of Elk steaks. I heard the Huskers players were jealous that they weren't allowed the freedom that the Buffs had. Another advantage for us, Nebraska will refuse to bring their cheerleaders, looking out for their well-being.
Signed
Goba Fellows
EDITED: 29 Apr 2006 by MICK
Show messages: 1-16 17-36 37-56 57-75