VideoHelp Forum




+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 86
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Search Comp PM
    For the last ten years or so, I've been helping my brother in law by scanning and restoring old photographs and slides for his casino collectibles business. Traditional prints that are less than 30 years old have degraded markedly. The paper and emulsion are brittle and the colors have shifted or faded. Slides and negatives are particularly hard hit.

    By the time a photograph, slide, or negative is 40-50 years old, the color maps are so damaged that restoration is more art than science.

    All the prints my brother in law sells are done on an inkjet printer, and come with a 30 year replacement guarantee. In the ten years I've been helping him, not one person has requested a replacement. Keep in mind that the inks and papers of ten years ago don't have anywhere near the same permanence ratings as their modern counterparts.

    If you want actual facts on the permanence of inkjet prints, or traditional prints, you should try Wilhelm Imaging Research. There is a wealth of free information there about the preservation of photos, slides, etc. They'll even give you a free copy of their 768 page book (in pdf):
    "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures"

    In a study from that site, they found that Ektacolor 37 RC paper (Process EP-3) "Kodacolor Print" when processed by Kodak had a 10% fade of the image dye in just 10 years, and that doesn't take into account the "gradual formation of a yellowish stain" which "...may become objectionable" in the same 10 year period.

    From the same site, they have found that many inkjet prints (depending on the ink, paper, and storage conditions) can last longer before suffering the same level of fading. In particular, the Epson Picturemate Personal Photo Lab has a "Display Permanence Rating" of 104 years (with proper handling).

    The only way to truly archive images is to digitize them, but images stored on a cd or dvd will rarely be viewed. In the real world there has to be a print. If you'll actually go to the site above, and do some studying, you'll find that modern inkjet printers can produce excellent results.

    Yes, taking a flash card up to the corner drugstore (or Walmart or whatever) will be cheaper and easier, but if you're talking about prints for sale, or to go into a family album, a good inket printer and supplies are a better choice.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member cyflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    London uk
    Search Comp PM
    So, HP stands for:
    High Price,
    Hiked Products,
    Hello Poverty,
    Heaven Prevent,
    Hell (to) Pay,
    H'ouch Please !
    Holly Printouts !
    Handover Plenty,

    anymore ?
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by adam
    Ink manufacturers just have to actually create their own product rather than steal another's.
    I don't think anyone has suggested that generic cartridges are stolen goods, if they were, then that would have been a completely different issue.
    From my own experience the only difference between an original and a generic ink-cartridge has been the price. And I would think HP (considering their current cartridge prices) could use a cheaper version available for their printers to stay competitive.

    Ofcourse, that's partially what patents are for isn't it? To undermine the free market, establish monopoly and make sure that companies don't have to stay competitive.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Vovin
    I don't think anyone has suggested that generic cartridges are stolen goods
    I didn't say the cartridges were stolen I said the ink formula was. That is what a patent infringement is, a stolen invention. That is the whole point of this thread! So like I said, manufacturers are free to make ink cartridges for any brand of printer they want, they just have to come up with their own ink formula (or use something off patent), they can't steal another's.

    Where did I ever say that all generic cartridges are stolen, or infringing, or anything else?

    I also wouldn't agree at all with your description of patents but that's another issue.

    Originally Posted by Vovin
    From my own experience the only difference between an original and a generic ink-cartridge has been the price.
    Unless the brand name's ink has gone off patent, or was never patented, the difference between the original and the generic is the INK of course. The price difference is because people tend to trust the brand names more. Generic inks are generally just as good for most applicatiosn but not always, it all depends on the quality and compatibility of the ink they use.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hech54
    I only worded it that way because:

    Some people simply like to get their jollies copying rented DVDs simply because they can and we all know that rented DVD do not come with cover art....
    This is true. Some people. Not all people. Far from it. Of course, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread.

    It has nothing to do with the outrageous prices charged for consumables by the printer manufacturers, and their decision to use this as their business model.

    Originally Posted by hech54
    OR

    Some people get their jollies selling fake DVDs on places like Ebay so they need tons of cheap ink to print out the dozens of bootleg printable DVDs and cover art in order to maximize their illegal profits....
    This is also true. Some people do this. Some do not. Of course, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread.

    It has nothing to do with the outrageous prices charged for consumables by the printer manufacturers, and their decision to use this as their business model.

    Originally Posted by hech54
    would have been a bit too harsh and accusatory.
    Actually, it would have been less harsh and less accusatory. It would have merely been pointing out that there are people who sometimes use ink as a tool to help them violate copyright law.

    Of course, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with the outrageous prices charged for consumables by the printer manufacturers, and their decision to use this as their business model.


    Originally Posted by hech54
    It is my personal opinion that people who complain about cover sites being down or stories like in the original post fall into one of the two scenarios I mentioned above.
    This is, as you stated, your own (incorrect) opinion. There are, of course, those of us who print out attractive covers for backed up copies of DVDs they actually own (I do, both for the kids to use upstairs, and also for the kids to use in the wife's mini-van.)

    And, I sense a theme here... but it should be noted that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with the outrageous prices charged for consumables by the printer manufacturers, and their decision to use this as their business model.

    Originally Posted by hech54
    I've also been posting comments like this for a LONG time and much to my surprise...not one of the threads that I've posted in have been locked and nobody has been given a warning once the thread gets far enough to be of questionable content.
    Amazing.
    This sounds suspiciously like the conversation I just had with my 12-year-old boy when he tried to explain how it was okay for him to skip lunch, since he had been "doing it for a LONG time" and up until now nobody had ever warned him.

    Thread hijacking is still wrong.

    Not that any of this has anything to do with the the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with the outrageous prices charged for consumables by the printer manufacturers, and their decision to use this as their business model.

    Just my thoughts,

    -Bruce
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member hech54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Yank in Europe
    Search PM
    In a way you are correct Bruce. My point is that I've been here a long time and I constantly see the same people over and over again starting and/or avidly participating in threads such as these....and the same ones also chime in vigorously on threads concerning Cover Sites being out of commision, down, or even the quality of such covers on cover sites. They also seem to flock to threads concerning DVD Rental places/prices/maximum number you can rent at one time....etc etc etc.
    And of course the most common response is "what if you(I) don't own a scanner?"....pretty funny. Hundreds of dollars in burners, blank printable media and Factory Pressed DVD's that require better artwork than Hollywood provides....leaves them with a lack of enough funding to buy a scanner in order to scan the original covers?
    Coincedence indeed....
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member FulciLives's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Search Comp PM
    I just bought a new printer and it was ... an EPSON LOL

    My first "really nice" color inkjet was an HP only because the store I could get credit at only carried HP. I really wanted an EPSON ... both the HP and the EPSON were about $500 to $600 (this is a few years ago mind you when prices were higher).

    Just a few months after buying the HP I started dating a woman that had the EPSON I had wanted to buy. Although the HP was decent ... even "very" good ... the EPSON blew it out of the water.

    Never another HP for me!

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
    "The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
    EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member LSchafroth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    If they would spend that much time working on Printer drivers, they would be a perfect solution.

    They have good hardware for the most part but drivers have always stopped people from getting them.



    LS
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    India
    Search Comp PM
    Even HP cartridges get clogged.
    Suggested method from HP representative to unclog.
    Bang it hard on the side opposite the nozzles on a hard object to wit a desk, a few times till you see some ink ooze out of the nozzles.

    That is the equivalent of
    Kick it if it doesn't work.
    Anyway, I have couple of HP ink jet printers and always use HP cartridges.
    The usage is very low.
    If it was high, considering the prices I would go for refilledgeneric cartridges.
    Price of two cartridges (color+black) is almost that of a printer in my country.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Going Mad TheFamilyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    south SF bay area, CA USA
    Search Comp PM
    I've been buying refurbed HP cartridges for a couple of years now from premiumink.com. Their quality has been as good as the originals. About 2 months ago I placed an order, and it vanished! I contacted them and they did not have any record of it. So I went to put in my order again and voila, disclaimers about their ink not being the same as HP's and now they're advertising new HP's right next to their refurbs. Also their refurbed prices seemed to be bumped up about $5, but still not a bad deal with free shipping. I don't ever remember seeing any of this before...it looks like the HP lawers sat down with them and made an offer they couldn't refuse...
    Usually long gone and forgotten
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Search Comp PM
    So like I said, manufacturers are free to make ink cartridges for any brand of printer they want, they just have to come up with their own ink formula (or use something off patent), they can't steal another's.
    At least concerning HP, they can't make ink cartridges. In January of 2002, HP won a lawsuit against Microjet Technology Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan (who had manufactured cartridges for use with HP printers) for infringing on 6 patents owned by HP.

    As to stealing HP's ink formula, modern ink formulas are kind of like a recipe, with lots of different ingredients. So far, HP has only asked Cartridge World "to stop using inks with the same chemical composition that's found in its patented brand of Vivera inks", so there aren't any legal documents to show the details of the claim.

    Earlier this year, though, HP did file a lawsuit against InkCycle, which HP won in June of this year. In that case, HP cited infringements on three of their patents: 5,165,968; 5,428,383 and 5,488,402.

    Here's the abstract of 5,165,968:
    "If a small amount of alcohol (about 0.05 to 6 wt %) is added to water-based inks for thermal ink-jet printing, the resultant print has a rapid dry time and improved smear resistance. In addition, a high quality print is obtained, even on plain paper."

    So, if you add a little alcohol to your ink, it will dry faster and smear less. I guess that's why Sharpies have a little alcohol in their inks. Tatoo inks also contain alcohol, as do other inks. Did HP originate the idea of using alcohol in ink? No, but HP does indeed have a patent on the addition of alcohol to ink used in a thermal ink-jet printer.

    The other two patents are really just one feature of ink, and concern using a "precipitating agent" (in this case, a multi-valent metal salt) in the inks so that where two inks come together, they react and make a precipitate that acts like a little dam to keep the inks from running together. Again, this is nothing new. Even plain paper uses an alum-rosin mix (for example) so ink stays put, instead of spreading out like you get with blotting paper. But yes, HP does have patents for the specific chemicals they use as precipitating agents (as do Epson, Lexmark, etc).

    So, at least in the case against InkCycle, three ingredients of the ink recipe they used were patent infringements. The entire rest of the ink formula (dyes/pigments, carriers, etc) apparently did not infringe HP patents, meaning InkCycle did (mostly) "come up with their own ink formula".

    Given the above, I really don't think it's fair to infer that "compatible" ink manufacturers are stealing HP's formula for ink. In the InkCycle case, they used a couple of the same ingredients in their recipe, paid for it, and theoretically are now using completely their own ink formula.

    Given HP's history of vigorous litigation, either InkCycle, Cartridge World, and others made a simple mistake in some of their choices for ingredients, or they have really, really stupid management. Is there such a thing as accidental theft?

    By the way, cyflyer, you missed "Huge Profits".
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    WTF, does anyone read posts before challenging them anymore?

    So like I said, manufacturers are free to make ink cartridges for any brand of printer they want, they just have to come up with their own ink formula (or use something off patent), they can't steal another's.
    Originally Posted by VegasBud
    At least concerning HP, they can't make ink cartridges. In January of 2002, HP won a lawsuit against Microjet Technology Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan (who had manufactured cartridges for use with HP printers) for infringing on 6 patents owned by HP.
    What is your point? They can't manufacturer ink cartridges, CURRENTLY, because an injunction was granted against them BECAUSE they infringed on the ink patents. That is exactly what I just said in my quote. Manufacturers can make ink cartridges for any brand of printer they want they just can't steal another's patented ink formula. This particular manufacturer DID steal another's ink formula!

    Originally Posted by VegasBud
    I really don't think it's fair to infer that "compatible" ink manufacturers are stealing HP's formula for ink.
    Where the hell did I ever say that? I'm not commenting on the facts of this case since there are none yet and I'm most certainly not talking about all generic ink manufacturers. I'm responding to an earlier post that said such litigation prevents generic ink manufacturers from selling cartridges for certain printers. For the last damn time, you can make generic ink cartridges for any printer you want you just can't infringe a patent (on anything) in the process. What the hell is so unbelievable about this statement?

    I'm not going to argue semantics about what "mostly" coming up with your own ink formula means. Each patent is a separate invention. If you infringe on it you have stolen that invention, that's just how patents work it doesn't matter if 99% of the rest of the formula was your own.

    And no there is no such thing as accidental theft and theft only applies to tangible goods anyway. A patent infringement could easily be considered accidental stealing but that doesn't really mean anything since neither culpability nor negligence are elements of a patent infringement claim.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by adam
    WTF, does anyone read posts before challenging them anymore?
    Yes, I read the posts.

    Originally Posted by VegasBud
    At least concerning HP, they can't make ink cartridges. In January of 2002, HP won a lawsuit against Microjet Technology Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan (who had manufactured cartridges for use with HP printers) for infringing on 6 patents owned by HP.
    Originally Posted by adam
    What is your point? They can't manufacturer ink cartridges, CURRENTLY, because an injunction was granted against them BECAUSE they infringed on the ink patents. That is exactly what I just said in my quote. Manufacturers can make ink cartridges for any brand of printer they want they just can't steal another's patented ink formula. This particular manufacturer DID steal another's ink formula!
    I thought my point was pretty clear, but I guess not. I left the actual infringed patent numbers off because my post was getting so long. In retrospect, that may have dulled the point. The 6 patent infringements by Microjet Technology Co. didn't have anything to do with ink patents. The infringed patents concerned the cartridge itself. Here are the numbers of the 6 patents infringed by Microjet Technology Co.:
    4872027
    4635273
    4827294
    4992802
    5409134
    4680859
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Yes if you infringe on any patent it can get you into trouble. I don't see what this has to do with my any of my statements or even this thread.

    I could have said ink manufacturers can't infringe on any patent, I could have brought up trademarks and copyrights, and product label requirements or anything else. But since this thread is about ink that's all I bothered mentioning.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member SaSi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hellas
    Search Comp PM
    A long time ago, HP used to bring out inovative products at affordable prices.

    These days, as I read, HP is losing money in all their divisions, including printers, except their consumables (printer ink and paper). This leads to a single conclusion. They overprice their consumables.

    I won't argue that HP spend a fortune to bring out better ink and paper. All their competitors do so (Epson, Canon, Lexmark, etc) and if they want a market share they have to compete hard. And they have a right to get back their invested money.

    But offseting their company-wide losses from ink ???

    Apart from that, all low cost (<140$) printers use inks that are overpriced, no matter what make they are. The best way to save money on ink is to buy a more expensive printer that uses cheaper ink more economically.

    I am an Epson user, and I have experience from both professional printers (e.g. Stylus Color 1520) and cheap personal printers (e.g. C64). The 1520 original inks are half the price of what the C64 inks cost and they print almost twice as much. Same story with the Stylus Photo 1200 series - although the inks are a bit pricey, the print much more than what the C64 do.
    The more I learn, the more I come to realize how little it is I know.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member maek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Arizona
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by CaptainVideo
    Cost per gallon of fluid.

    Gasoline $3.00
    Milk $2.99
    Coca-Cola $2.84
    Gatorade $5.20
    Evian Water $5.60
    Orange Juice $6.64
    Crisco Oil $7.44
    Perrier Water $8.16
    Snapple $10.32
    Scope $27.20
    Lemon Oil $27.22
    Olive Oil $51.04
    Shampoo $40.44
    Real Maple Syrup $57.08
    Jack Daniels Bourbon $101.12
    Visine Eye Drops $995.84
    Nasacort Nasal Spray $2,615.28
    Printer Ink $8,895.72

    Calculation based on HP Ink jet cartridge number 58, which contains 17ml of black ink at the typical list price of $39.95.

    Patents are one way of monopolizing a product...
    *scraps idea for HP Ink Hybrid Car* DAMN IT!!
    "What? Huh?!? WHAT will come out no more?!?" Jack Burton -- BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA
    Quote Quote  
  17. This whole industry has got to change. They are giving away the printers, and price gouging on the ink. I am surprised no one has filed a lawsuit against all printer manufacturers, for their FIXED PRICING of consumables!

    I got an Epson R200 and this d*mn thing is programmed to waste ink every time you turn it on. It goes through a priming process. Just for the heck of it, I power cycled the printer about 10 times. Guess what, a couple of the cartridges wasted 1/4 ink. There is no way I'm paying $70 for a set of tiny ass cartridges with little ink. I would not even pay $40. Look back at older inkjet printers. 10 years ago, you got a printer that came with cartridges filled with a lot more ink. Even if it was one cartridge, the amount was more than these multi-cartridge printers.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Epson is currently in litigation regardings its ink consumption. The suit alleges that the Epson software locks further printing, claiming the cartridges are empty, while there's still 33% more ink left in the cartridge! The numbers are calculated using actual Epson cartridges though which I never used after my initial ones went dry. Using generics of all kinds, the ink level gauge seems pretty accurate to me.

    But I hear ya, everytime you put in another cartridge it uses about 10% ink from all cartridges in the priming process.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member maek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Arizona
    Search Comp PM
    I agree with both of the previous replies regarding Epson and HP. I leave my HP printer on continuously to avoid the issue of having that happen. I went to HP because the Epson 777 I used to have would prime itself EVEN BEFORE A PRINT JOB and EVEN WHEN I LEFT THE DAMN THING ON ALL THE TIME. It may be 1 or 2 days before I printed something, but that printer would decide that "enough time has elapsed" to require priming. I think Epson is the worst offender, though.

    Bottom line...ignore the low ink warning and keep printing until you notice a degradation in print quality. I did that on BOTH printers...except the Epson will "prime" itself just about every time.
    "What? Huh?!? WHAT will come out no more?!?" Jack Burton -- BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member e404pnf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Warmington on Sea
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by CaptainVideo
    Patents are one way of monopolizing a product...
    Yes, that is the whole point of a patent
    It's a trade - a time limited monopoly for complete disclosure of the invention.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member thecoalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Wile_E
    I got an Epson R200 and this d*mn thing is programmed to waste ink every time you turn it on. It goes through a priming process. Just for the heck of it, I power cycled the printer about 10 times
    On the flip side it may be prudent to turn it off if you don't use it constantly. I was having trouble with clogged jets on a printer that I constantly left on, only way to clean as you know is waste ink. Turning it off when not in use apparently clears the heads or whatever it does reducing the amount wasted on cleaning it.....

    Guess they got you coming or going though.... :P

    Here's my pet peeves about my Epson Stylus Photo 820:

    1. You gotta use ink to clean.
    2. Even if there's only one jet clogged you have to clean all the jets.
    3. I have a single cartridge for color, I'm pretty sure there's lots of certain colors left. More waste....
    4. Black ink even if brand new doesn't work unless you have a "good" color cartridge installed.....
    5. The 220mb required install... WTF requires 220mb?
    6. The "you ink cartidges are low, do you wish to purchase" nag screen that just will not go away no matter what you do, doesn't matter what you select it's there and on top constantly if the cartridges are low.

    ~~~
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member pchan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by canadateck
    PS:I only use a Canon Printer,and the Cheapest INK I can Find,I only use Canon Yellow INK. :P
    Absolutely ! With compatible ink for Canon at 1/3 the price, that's even cheaper.

    Ever open an ink jet printer... It has a soaker at the bottom to soak all those ink purge during head cleaning and start-up. $$$ down the soaker....
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Search Comp PM
    thecoalman:

    A couple of the items on your pet peeve list can be taken care of by using the freeware program SSC Service Utility. The program site says it does support (among many other models) the "Epson Stylus Photo 810 / 820". It only works on Epson printers, but it lets you do things like:

    -freeze the ink counters (levels)
    -reset the ink levels (even on an empty cartridge)
    -separate the head cleaning
    -etc.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member Paul_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Yes Canon compatable ink is so cheap on Ebay it makes no sense buying overpriced fancy boxed Canon ink.

    I pay £16 for 20 compatable carts (12B, 8C) while the local shop charges £21.99 for 2 oem carts (1B, 1C), but what would i know those 20 carts are for piracy reasons.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Originally Posted by e404pnf
    It's a trade - a time limited monopoly for complete disclosure of the invention.
    Yes, it's supposed to be. It allows the inventor to make a profit on their invention. Patents thankfully haven't been extended to death like copyrights. But is 20 years really needed to profit from a software patent? Or an ink patent?
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member e404pnf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Warmington on Sea
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by CaptainVideo
    But is 20 years really needed to profit from a software patent? Or an ink patent?
    Software isn't patentable - as written text it is covered under copyright law.

    Is a 20 year monopoly needed to recoup the cost of investment and make a profit from printer ink? Probably not. However, very few patents are actually profitable for the whole life of the patent (to be honest many patents are never profitable). This is because most inventions are patented years before they actually come to market. This is especially the case outside the US where the priority date is the date of application not the date of invention (I think the US is the only country to use the date of invention but could be wrong). Moreover, in a fast paced technological field, new (non-infringing) patents often leave old patents obsolete, reducing the profitable lifespan even further.

    So the actual marketable life span of a patent is very rarely 20 years. But what is the alternative? If this was reduced it no longer becomes economically viable to patent, and companies rely on secrecy and non-disclosure agreements that would last a long longer than 20 years, such as the Coca-Cola recipe. While this would be feasible for some industries, others which require complete disclosure (I'm particularly thinking of the pharmaceutical industry) would grind to a halt without a 20 year patent*.

    - e404pnf

    * To be wholly accurate the term of a pharma patent is often extended beyond 20 years to allow for this reduced marketable life and the huge costs in bringing a new drug to market. Also, The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (think that’s its name) in the US and the European equivalent that should be introduced in 2006, will enable Pharma patents to be extended a little further.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Right, the completed software program is copyrighted, but the underlying code is patented. I see your point that patents can become obsolete quickly and that most patents don't make money, I guess a consequence of this is that some patent holders feel the need to make their patents as broad as possible. This is a problem, patents shouldn't be broad, they should be very specific in what they cover. The patent office unfortunately allows these broad patents to be approved and then they are used to stifle innovation.

    And I agree when it comes to pharma companies. They should be given incentives. While they are private companies that are in the business to make money, their business is to improve our health. Something that should always be encouraged.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    CaptainVideo the source code of software can only be protected by copyright not patent. The application code is not protected at all. You can patent an invention which is implemented through software, like an algorithm, but there is no such thing as a software patent in the US. You just can't patent code of any kind at all. The invention has to exist on its own outside of any software program.

    Patents are not broad and cannot be described as such in any sense of the word. Patents are positively narrow to the utmost degree. Change one little iota about the patented invention and you are no longer infringing. The patent office is extremely critical of patent applications. Most patents have to be submitted 3 times before they get approved.
    Quote Quote  
  29. adam, that might be it in a black and white legal sense but that doesn't seem to be the case in reality. So many companies are using their patents to cover broad applications. Such as one company claiming to hold the patent for downloadable video across all technologies. That's just insane. I can understand for a specific way to download video, but this should not cover all ways.

    The US doesn't have software patents? True enough, in a black and white sense, congress has not legislated software patents, however courts have allowed software patents and the courts have used a liberal interpretation of the 1952 Patent Act to allow it. Congress has not put a stop to it, so yes in a strict sense of law there are no software patents, yet because of courts companies do hold them.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I don't know what patent you are referring to in your first paragraph. I don't believe I've ever seen what I would consider to be a broad patent as it applied to technology generally. I don't believe there is such a thing.

    As for your second paragraph that is just complete nonesense. There is not 1 single software patent in existence in the United States. There is no such thing. General courts don't have the power to grant patents, only the Patent Office does and they flat out do not allow patents to be held in software because software is classified as a "mental step" process which fails all three of of the patent requirements. There are about 30 major Patent Court cases on this and they have all ruled the same way, software is non-patentable.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!